GOV/MIL Leftists Call For New "Secret Police" Force To Spy On Trump Supporters (AN ABSOLUTELY MUST-READ THREAD)

[marsh]

Abigail Shrier: Activist Teachers Recruit Middle Schoolers for LGBTQ Clubs

Abigail Shrier said activist teachers are working to recruit middle school children for “LGBTQ clubs” while subverting parents.

www.breitbart.com

Abigail Shrier: Activist Teachers Recruit Middle Schoolers for ‘LGBTQ Clubs,’ Mock Parents

Chinnapong/Getty Images
DR. SUSAN BERRY19 Nov 2021133

Author and journalist Abigail Shrier said authenticated documents and audio files sent to her reveal activist teachers are working to personally recruit middle school-age children for “LGBTQ clubs” by tracking their Google searches, all while subverting parents.

Shrier, the author of Irreversible Damage: the Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, wrote at her Substack column Thursday that the leaked materials from a meeting of the California Teachers Association (CTA) last month revealed the union “advising teachers on best practices for subverting parents, conservative communities and school principals on issues of gender identity and sexual orientation.



“Speakers went so far as to tout their surveillance of students’ Google searches, internet activity, and hallway conversations in order to target sixth graders for personal invitations to LGBTQ clubs, while actively concealing these clubs’ membership rolls from participants’ parents,” she added.

The documents and files, Shrier reported, were “authenticated by three conference participants,” at a sold-out event in Palm Springs October 29-31:

The “2021 LGBTQ+ Issues Conference, Beyond the Binary: Identity & Imagining Possibilities,” provided best practices workshops that encouraged teachers to “have the courage to create a safe environment that fosters bravery to explore sexual orientation, gender identity and expression,” according to the precis of a talk given by fifth grade teacher, C. Scott Miller.

According to Shrier’s report, some of the union’s workshops advised teachers on how to create the LGBTQ clubs commonly known as “Gay-Straight Alliance” (GSA) groups, while one – “Queering in the Middle” – zeroed in on how to especially grab the attention of middle school-age children.

Lori Caldeira, Buena Vista Middle School teacher and LGBTQ-club adviser in the Spreckels Union School District (SUSD) is reportedly heard on an audio file addressing the issue of what to do about parents who object to their 12-year-old participating in an LGBTQ club.

“Because we are not official – we have no club rosters, we keep no records,” Caldeira reportedly said. “In fact, sometimes we don’t really want to keep records because if parents get upset that their kids are coming? We’re like, ‘Yeah, I don’t know. Maybe they came?’ You know, we would never want a kid to get in trouble for attending if their parents are upset.”

Another middle school teacher, Kelly Baraki, was reportedly heard describing how she has changed the name of her “GSA” to the “Equity Club,” and then later to “You Be You,” in order to keep parents at bay.

Shrier said both Caldeira and Baraki led a workshop titled, “How we run a ‘GSA’ in Conservative Communities.”

Keeping middle school children focused on their sexual orientations and gender identities is still a challenge to these activist teachers.



A boy carries a flag during the New York City Pride March, June 26, 2016, in New York City. (Photo by Eric Thayer/Getty Images)
Shrier reported advice from Baraki:

So, we started to try and identify kids. When we were doing our virtual learning – we totally stalked what they were doing on Google, when they weren’t doing school work. One of them was googling “Trans Day of Visibility.” And we’re like, “Check.” We’re going to invite that kid when we get back on campus. Whenever they follow the Google Doodle links or whatever, right, we make note of those kids and the things that they bring up with each other in chats or email or whatever.

“We use our observations of kids in the classroom—conversations that we hear—to personally invite students,” Baraki reportedly continued. “Because that’s really the way we kinda get the bodies in the door. Right? They need sort of a little bit of an invitation.”

Caldeira reportedly said she uses her job as the teacher who runs morning announcements as another strategy:

I’m the one who controls the messaging. Everybody says, “Oh, Ms. Caldeira, you’re so sweet, you volunteered to do that.” Of course, I’m so sweet that I volunteered to do that. Because then I control the information that goes home. And for the first time, this year, students have been allowed to put openly LGBT content into our morning announcement slides.

Caldeira apparently touted in the audio clip that her LGBTQ student “team” consists of three children, “two of them are non-binary, and the other one is just very fluid in every way – she’s fabulous.”

“So, it’s actually a nice group,” she reportedly said. “And the principal, she may flinch, but she [flinches] privately.”

To prevent the problem of “parent backlash” after middle schoolers spill the beans to their parents about the actual content of the “anti-bullying” presentation taught by Caldeira and Baraki, Shrier reported Baraki said, “Next year, we’re going to do just a little mind-trick on our sixth graders.”

The teacher explained:

They were last to go through this presentation and the gender stuff was the last thing we talked about. So next year, they’ll be going first with this presentation and the gender stuff will be the first thing they are about. Hopefully to mitigate, you know, these kind of responses, right?

“Parents who oppose this material being taught to their sixth graders will find that their objections arrive too late,” Shrier noted, commenting further on some of the two teachers’ remarks about parent objections.

Baraki, for example, mocked one parent who objected to the presentation, asserting she had not planned on discussing gender identity with her middle school-age child as yet.

“I know, so sad, right?” Baraki was apparently heard ridiculing the parent. “Sorry for you, you had to do something hard! Honestly, your twelve-year-old probably knew all that, right?”

When another parent voiced strong objections to the content of the presentation and the principal suggested she send her child to a private school, Caldeira reportedly said, “So that was a win, right? We count that as a win.”

“Plus, I hate to say this, but thank you CTA—but I have tenure!” the teacher boasted further.

“You can’t fire me for running a GSA. And so, you can be mad, but you can’t fire me for it. CTA has made it very clear that they are devoted to human rights and equity. They provide us with these sources, these resources and tools.”

Shrier observed the irony of Caldeira’s comment to her teacher audience.

“You should know, we’ve also acted with great integrity in the past several years that we have run [a GSA],” Caldeira reportedly said. “We never crossed a line. We’ve wanted to, but we never have.”



The school district provided the following response to Shrier’s report, noting, “The teachers were using personal leave to lead a breakout session in their roles as CTA members; they were not officially presenting on behalf of SUSD, nor were their presentation materials or comments reviewed by SUSD administration.”

“Many of the comments and themes stated in the article are alarming, concerning, disappointing, and do not in any way reflect the District or Board of Education’s policies and practices,” SUSD officials said, addressing the steps the district is now taking:

• The student club mentioned in the article, UBU (You be You), has been suspended.

• Any future student clubs will be required to submit an outline of all activities and materials before being allowed to meet. Student sign-in sheets will be maintained and parent/guardian permission slips will be sent home prior to a club holding a meeting.

• All messaging shared in the morning announcements will now be controlled and distributed by the site principal. This practice will be in place permanently.

• Any presentation or assembly involving sensitive themes such as sexuality will be created in line with state-approved standards and curriculum, and under the supervision of site and district administration. Materials of any sensitive themes will be shared with parents/guardians prior to being shown to students.

• Teachers are prohibited from monitoring students’ online activity for any non-academic purposes.

“Regarding the teachers involved, appropriate personnel steps are being taken to make sure such activities and comments will not be repeated,” the response stated.

 

[marsh]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENtm5A1rlfU
28:25 min

Dad Puts School on Blast Over Explicit Sexual Reading Materials: Live Interview

Streamed live 9 hours ago


Ivory Hecker

 

[marsh]

Righteousness + Force in America: The Trap of Righteous Activism Coupled with State Power

Righteousness and force didn't end last summer – we can see it in the digital pages of our electronic newspapers almost every day.

thebluestateconservative.com

Righteousness + Force in America: The Trap Of Righteous Activism Coupled With State Power

• November 19, 202
• By Guest Author Sam Jacobs

There are two ways of getting things done: persuasion or coercion. You either convince someone of the value of your ideas or you hold a (literal or metaphorical) gun to their head. The latter has been the norm throughout human history. Most of what we value about the contemporary West is a shift toward the former occurring over the last 250 years or so.

However, there’s an important difference between the despotisms of old and coercive governments in the modern era: modern-day tyrants frame themselves as the righteous side in any conflict.

Think about it: Ancient Persian Emperors and the German Kaiser didn’t paint themselves as the moral superiors of their enemies. They simply wanted their stuff and, if they could, they took it. In contrast, during the American Civil War or the Allied cause during World War II, force didn’t justify itself. Instead, force was justified by the righteousness of the cause.

(President Lincoln openly, repeatedly stated more than a year into the Civil War that his call to “end slavery” was a useful means by which to justify his real objective: To preserve the Union.)

The need to justify force with righteousness is not limited to wartime. Every new coercive law or regulation is justified not on the basis of “I’m strong enough to take your stuff and so I think I will,” but because “our cause is just.” While some who would take your freedom or your life are motivated by their desire for power, the most vicious monsters in human history were all motivated by righteousness. They seek to perfect creation, no matter what the cost, rather than simply acquire power for its own end – a philosophically important distinction.

It is this philosophy of using state power to impose one’s morality on others that in part has made American politics such a bloodsport nowadays. If you follow the thread from the Abolitionist movement (which provided moral justification for the Union’s invasion of the Confederacy) through the Temperance movement (which culminated in Prohibition) to the Progressivism movement as we detail below, you’ll see why.

What Do We Mean by Righteousness?

Righteousness is simply the sense that one’s cause is so just that “the ends justify the means” – the ends could be anything. A critical feature of righteousness is the belief in the perfectibility of man and earth. It is often accompanied by philosophical progressivism, the view that the world becomes a better place, morally speaking, over time.

Righteousness requires coercion. This necessitates a large administrative state to enforce the prevailing diktats of the secular-religious. An excellent example from recent history is the campaign against tobacco, which in the span of a few years was chased from every public place.

Righteousness is not simply progressivism. It is a specific type of progressivism forged in America through the experience of Pietist Protestant Christians. The Pietists were originally Scandinavian Lutherans, but the posture of Pietism spread to most Protestant denominations in the United States: The Northern Baptists and Methodists, the Congregationalists, the Disciples of Christ, the Presbyterians, and others.

The Pietists rejected ritualistic or “liturgical” religious practice in favor of an inner experience expressed in one’s daily life. Correct beliefs and proper living were the focus, culminating in the Holiness Movement, which was an extreme and fundamentalist expression of Pietism. Holiness tolerated no deviation from orthodoxy in either thought or deed.

Righteousness, like its Pietist forebears, isn’t satisfied that you do and say the right things, you need to truly believe the right things. Compliance is not enough. You have to love Big Brother.

Righteousness moved from the realm of the deeply religious Protestant pietists of early America into the mainstream progressive movement. The latter adopted this surety and energy, seeking to expand their ersatz religion into every aspect of American life.

Righteousness is dangerous as a political force because of how certain it makes those infected with it. What’s more, political righteousness makes the stakes increasingly apocalyptic, allowing the ends to continually justify any means, up to and including the death camp.

This is not hyperbole: Righteousness does not prohibit your political participation, it demands it, and it sees everything else about you as superfluous.

Righteousness Enters the World Stage: Abolitionism

It is often said that before the Civil War, the United States “are,” but after the War, the United States “is.” This is a reference to the formerly theoretically sovereign nature of each state as compared to “one nation, indivisible” found in the Pledge of Allegiance, which was created after the Civil War by a Union war veteran.

Why does this distinction matter? Because it was a distinction which the Confederacy, headed by Jefferson Davis, was willing to test in the furnaces of war.

In the run-up to the War, Davis repeatedly pointed out that the U.S. was a voluntary union of states which delegated authority to Washington, as ratified in the U.S. Constitution in the Bill of Rights #9 and #10. Thus if a state wanted to leave the Union, it could do so. Despite the best efforts of the southern states to maintain the Union, at the end of the day they voted to secede because their differences with the northern states were irreconcilable. Was slavery one of the issues over which they didn’t agree? Yes, absolutely. Slavery was an issue that plagued the Founders as well.

Yet Davis made an important point: Just because one doesn’t like slavery (and we don’t like slavery, let’s be clear) that does not then automatically mean that one supports President Lincoln using the U.S. Army to roll into the Confederacy in order to occupy them and make them behave the way we’d like them to. This is persuasion vs. coercion in action.

(One of the reasons Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason following the Civil War is that his case would’ve given him a platform to highlight the Constitutional issues presented by the North’s invasion of the South.)

Fast forward to the present day. If you’re reading this then you’re likely a Unionist (i.e. happy that the U.S. is intact), at least in spirit if not in name, and also a fan of President Lincoln. Yet it was President Lincoln who said, in a widely publicized 1862 letter written more than a year into the War:

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do lesswhenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause (of saving the Union), and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”

One can point this out without arguing in favor of slavery as it’s clear President Lincoln knew what he was doing – trying to save the Union – and that picking up the moral banner of ending slavery was a useful means by which to ally himself because it furthered his goal of saving the Union. Machiavelli would’ve been proud, and so were the Abolitionists, who got a taste of what righteousness and force can do once the reins of state power are grasped.

It was these Abolitionists who not only claimed the moral high ground for President Lincoln during the War but who, following Appomattox, then went about the Reconstruction of the Southern state governments, which was largely a disaster.

During Reconstruction, the Northern Republicans attempted to form Southern state governments with people who either had no experience in governance or had no connections to their constituents because the righteousness of their cause, “reconstructing” the South, would make it all work in the end.

Note that this is not a condemnation of the abolitionist cause, instead, it is a condemnation of the social phenomenon of righteousness, which generally sees political orthodoxy as trumping basic competence.

The end of the Civil War led to a total war against American citizens. Significant portions of Southern states were stripped of the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms. The Radical Reconstructionist Congress was all too eager to ride roughshod over the Southern states because they felt ideologically and morally justified in doing so.

What caused the Civil War will always remain a question of debate. What will not is that it represented a massive transfer of power upward from sovereign individuals and states to a centralized federal government, as Jefferson Davis warned. This provided later incarnations of righteousness and force with a ready-made set of tools to increase the efficiency of coercion.

The Reconstruction period did little to heal the nation. It gave us the Klan and Jim Crow laws, but it stands as an example of righteousness having a large effect on American politics.

Righteousness must also be considered separately from the question of abolition itself, which was a moot point by the time the Reconstruction governments came into power. It’s one thing to see slavery, which was the default mode of human production throughout all of human history, as a great moral evil that must be ended at once. It is another to dramatically punish, humiliate, and disenfranchise people who participated in this economic system.

It is still another thing entirely to attempt to dramatically remake the world into one’s personal vision of Heaven on Earth. The carpetbaggers flooding Southern states during the Reconstruction Era believed that they simply needed to point the right guns in the right direction to create their earthly paradise.

Righteousness, in addition to a tangible ability of coercion through the military, cops, and courts, was the animating force of Reconstruction; however, it didn’t end there.

Righteousness Comes for Your Daily Life: Temperance


(read the rest of the article here Righteousness + Force in America: The Trap of Righteous Activism Coupled with State Power )

 

[marsh]

CITIZEN FREE PRESS

The Greatest News Site On The Internet. Home of CFP Nation.

citizenfreepress.com

FBI conducted violent home raid on America’s Mom Founder…
Posted by Kane on November 20, 2021 2:28 pm


Sherronna Bishop, founder of America’s Mom — FBI raided her home with a battering ram and she was handcuffed in her front yard because of her political activism and support for Trump.

“I’m a very public figure. I make myself available to anyone who has questions, be it law enforcement, elected officials or regular everyday people… I have always been available, and yet they chose to come to my home in this way, break down my door, terrorize my family, and put me in cuffs, and I cannot help but think this was a major intimidation move because they did not do this with anyone else that was on that warrant.”



Rumble video on website 10:59 min

Rumble video on website 12:25 min

 

[marsh]

Parent Censored at School Board Meeting as He Gave a Speech about NSBA and Attorney General's Memo (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

A parent in Freeland, MI was rudely interrupted by a school board member and was not allowed to talk as he addressed issues about National School Board Association and the US Attorney General’s memo during a school board meeting on Wednesday.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Parent Censored at School Board Meeting as He Gave a Speech about NSBA and Attorney General’s Memo (VIDEO)

By Jim Hoft
Published November 20, 2021 at 4:25pm

A parent in Freeland, MI was rudely interrupted by a school board member and was not allowed to talk as he addressed issues about National School Board Association and the US Attorney General’s memo during a school board meeting on Wednesday.

Eric Gladwish of Michigan spoke in front of the board member to express his concerns about critical race theory, draconian COVID policies, x-rated anti-Christian health curriculum and surveys, NSBA, and the attorney general’s memorandum labeling parents as ‘domestic terrorists.’

Pete Wiltse, a school board member tried to censor him for speaking the truth. Mr. Gladwish was able to finish his speech after the break and he claimed that the conduct of Mr. Wiltse after the meeting was worse than what you will see in the video. Many in the community are asking for the board member to resign immediately.

Mr. Gladwish released his statement to Gateway Pundit regarding the incident:

All across this country, parents have started to pay attention to what is going on in their schools. Freeland parents are no different. We started as a small group of concerned parents and quickly grew to hundreds. Freeland Parents Stand Up was started. View our mission at www.standupfreeland.com. Together with our close neighboring community parent groups, we have thousands of parents standing and working together to revive liberty and community values in our public schools.

We hold regular group meetings to discuss school issues. The board member in the video trying to censor me at the school board meeting, Pete Wiltse, was invited to one of our regular group meetings to take questions from parents. We thanked Mr. Wiltse for having the courage to come to our meeting as he has been the only board member to do so. Mr. Wiltse engaged with parents but became increasingly hostile towards our group throughout the meeting. Parents left feeling as if Mr. Wiltse was not on our side on many important issues. I believe Mr. Wiltse left frustrated as parents were not buying what he was selling.

At our last group meeting on 11/14, Mr. Wiltse was there again as a surprise to many. Once again, Mr. Wiltse was hostile towards parents including myself.

As you can see from the video, Mr. Wiltse tried to shut me up right as I started to speak at public comment at the 11/17 school board meeting. I knew I was within my rights to speak and after the board took a short break to discuss board policy (I have never seen a break like this happen before), they let me finish my speech. The superintendent came up to me after the meeting and apologized for the behavior he witnessed from Mr. Wiltse.

After the board meeting as parents were still in the auditorium conversing with one another, Mr. Wiltse came off the stage where he was seated, and immediately targeted myself and another parent speaker and began to try and provoke an altercation. We politely asked Mr. Wiltse to please leave our space and not interrupt our conversation. He did not. He continued to try and escalate the situation.

After witnessing these events, many parents and community members have asked Mr. Wiltse to apologize and resign from the board immediately. He has not as of this comment.

Watch:

View: https://youtu.be/ZaJBagYtpj0
.54 min

Here is the transcript of Mr. Gladwish’s speech:

Are parents speaking in front of this board to express concerns about critical race theory, draconian COVID policies, x-rated anti- Christian health curriculum and surveys, or SCHD overreach, is that in and of itself, is that harassment and intimidation? The National School Board Assoc, the Michigan Assoc of School Boards, the United States Attorney General and many frightened politicians seem to think so.

The attorney general’s memorandum wants the public to believe that undefined parent conduct at school board meetings is now to be considered harassment and intimidation. But what really constitutes harassment and intimidation? The memo didn’t make it clear. It doesn’t define harassment or intimidation. – Now, it also talks about violence. I think we can all agree that violence shouldn’t be condoned or looked aside from in any way. But harassment and intimidation, what do those terms mean in the context of a local school board meeting?

Have you heard of the chill? I am referring to this in the first amendment context. We hear about the chill, the chill to speech. If this isn’t a deliberate attempt to chill

parents from showing up at school board meetings and sharing their concerns with their elected school board, I don’t know what is. I mean – I’m not – I’m not aware of anything like this in American history.

We’re talking about the FBI. They want to use the FBI to intervene in school board meetings. That’s extraordinary. Are there FBI agents here today?

If appropriate spirited public debate on a whole range of issues is absolutely what this country is all about. Then why is it being investigated? Why the FBI?

 

[marsh]

Republicans Promise National Education Fight in Midterms

Republicans gearing up for the midterms promise an education reform push focused on parental rights and educational standards.

www.breitbart.com

Republicans Promise National Education Fight in Midterms
10

MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images
BRECCAN F. THIES20 Nov 2021152

Seizing on the fervor surrounding Virginia Gov.-elect Glenn Youngkin’s unlikely victory in a blue state, Republicans across the country gearing up for the midterms are promising a major education reform push focused on parental rights and educational standards.

Youngkin traveled to Phoenix, Arizona, on Wednesday to speak at the Republican Governors Association (RGA) about the impact education had on his campaign — one that many believe can serve as a blueprint for taking back control of the House in 2022.

“The polls kept telling us that education was the seventh or eighth or ninth most important issue,” he said. “Let me tell you, it is the top issue right now, and Republicans across the country can own this topic.”


Gov. Doug Ducey of Arizona, left, speaks to reporters while Gov.-elect Glen Youngkin, of Virginia, Govs. Greg Abbott, of Texas, and Kim Reynolds and Pete Ricketts, of Nebraska, listen at the Republican Governors Association meeting in Phoenix on Wednesday, Nov. 17, 2021 (AP Photo/Jonathan J. Cooper).

A Republican path to victory, Youngkin said, would involve advocating for “strong schools that teach our children how to excel, not watering down the curriculum, a school where parents have a say in what their children are being taught.”

Breitbart News reported, “Public education bec[ame] a dark horse issue for Democrats” across the country in 2021, as parents have become increasingly aware of Critical Race Theory as an indoctrination scheme permeating every aspect of public education, as well as promotion of gender theory that has resulted, in some instances, in schools “transitioning” children to a different gender without parental consent, even despite their expressed objections, and in Loudoun County, Virginia, an alleged rape coverup by their school board to justify their passage of a far-left transgender policy.

“All the momentum is on our side, and Glenn’s race was the canary in the coal mine,” Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R), who endorsed Youngkin’s candidacy for governor, said at the RGA.

Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts (R) went even further, saying, “The Glenn Youngkin race provides a roadmap for Republicans in blue states and swing states. His win will define a new generation of Republican leadership and is a huge boost nationally going into 2022. This will be the most important election cycle in more than a decade for our party.”

“The teachers unions and these systems are prioritizing the system over the child, and every parent is standing up and saying, ‘Wait! Wait! Wait! I have a say. My kid is an individual and should be treated as such,'” New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) said of education’s new electoral prominence for Republicans.

Rep. Bob Good (R-VA) spoke at a press conference held by conservative-libertarian advocacy group FreedomWorks, deriding the “absolute hostility of the Biden Administration toward concerned parents,” referencing Attorney General Merrick Garland’s decision to sic the FBI on parents the National School Boards Association labeled “domestic terrorists”:



“Whether it’s radical transgender policies in our schools, whether it’s putting masks on our children, which is paramount to child abuse,” Good began, “whether it’s forcing vaccines on our children, or whether it’s teaching radical critical race theory in our school systems, educating our teachers to teach that, the lens through which everything is taught, we reject that.”


AP Photo/Ted S. Warren, File

Good then said the fight for schools was not over, encouraging parents to not “be quieted” by “standing in the gap” between their children and government entities such as schools.
One of Good’s recommended solutions is putting cameras in classrooms to afford parents “greater transparency”:

Parents ought to be able to look at the classroom at any time and see what’s happening in their school systems. Congress has given over $200 billion in funding to the school systems because of the virus and the pandemic, when they only asked for $25 billion from the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] to safely reopen. Let’s use some of that money to have greater transparency in the classrooms.

As the 2022 midterms begin heating up at the turn of the new year, Republicans appear adamant that education will be a prominent, winning message as they seek to take back control of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

 

[marsh]

The 'Diversity' Road to Mediocrity

pjmedia.com

The 'Diversity' Road to Mediocrity
BY PHILIP CARL SALZMAN NOV 19, 2021 8:25 PM ET

(AP Photo/Ariel Tu)
When you are looking for a scientist, an engineer, a designer, or an artist, if the most brilliant, accomplished, and talented candidate is a white male, reject him! White males are not “diverse,” are “privileged oppressors,” and “overrepresented,” so instead hire a member of a “marginalized. underserved minority,” such as a person of color, a female, an LGBTQ++ individual, a poor or disabled person. Never mind if the person hired is weaker at the job; “social justice” will have been served. The examples are staggering.

The competition for the 2021 Australian National Jazz Awards for piano was carried out via blind auditions using audio recordings, with the names, faces, and voices of the competitors not disclosed. The ten short-list candidates were all men. Female jazz performers went ballistic, denouncing the results as sexist and unfair. They demanded that blind auditions be done away with and that a quota for female winners be implemented. In other words, the female critics demanded that merit be rejected in favor of enforced parity of the sexes.

An even more egregious case is the competition for the prestigious fellow status for the American Geophysical Union. One committee was appointed to nominate candidates in the cryosphere (Earth’s snow and ice) section. Some of the candidates were described by the female member of the committee as “truly, amazingly deserving.” But the nominees, suggested by peers in the Union, were all men. This was too much for the diversicrats on the committee, who felt that “social justice” demanded the nomination of more females, more blacks, and more non-Americans. So the Committee refused to nominate a winner.

The claim made by diversicrats was that there is “implicit bias” against outgroup members, i.e. people who are not white males. It is alleged that members of oppressed victim groups, such as females and people of color, are not recognized for their accomplishments. A study in Scientific Social Studies concluded that prizes in 141 of the world’s top scientific competitions between 2001-2020 went to 2011 men and 262 women. This is a disparity that violates the “equity” argument that all census categories of race, sex, sexuality, etc., must have equal outcomes.

That this disparity is due to “implicit bias” is now claimed about all scientific prizes, such as the Nobel Prizes in science, three percent of which have been given to females, and none to black scientists. The fact that 26% of all scientific Nobel prizes went to Jews, who make up 0.02 percent of the world’s population, raises doubts about the implicit bias thesis, given the almost universal prejudice and widespread discrimination against Jews, who are by far the greatest recipient of religion-directed hate crimes. The alternative hypothesis that awards to Jews and others are based on scientific accomplishments is forbidden by diversicrats.

In just about every institution in what used to be Western Civilization, white males are personae non gratae. Job ads often exclude white men from applying, as is seen in many ads for university positions. This is also true in business. For example, one of the world’s largest investment companies, State Street Global Advisors will require special permission to hire white men as part of the company’s new diversity hiring initiative, according to the company’s head of inclusion, diversity, and corporate citizenship. The company said that “All of our leaders have to demonstrate at their annual appraisals what they have done to improve female representation and the number of colleagues from ethnic-minority backgrounds.” The company plans to triple the number of Black, Asian and other minority staff in senior positions by 2023, and if executives don’t meet the quotas, they will face reduced bonuses. No requirement is specified for achievement, merit, or potential.

But females, if white, are not sufficiently diverse. The St. Catherine University conference on equipping and empowering women for leadership roles was canceled when the University discovered that all thirty of the invited participants were white women. The administration stated that the lineup did “not reflect the diverse St. Kate’s community of today nor the world of tomorrow we are committed to creating.” While the administration granted that the credentials of the speakers were strong, the selection “led to a racial and ethnic blind outcome.”

“Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) has replaced achievement, merit, and potential as the official policy of most North American institutions—governmental, educational, industrial, and professional—for recruitment, promotion, and financial support.

“Social justice” is the justification for DEI, and is defined as the statistical equivalence of census categories of race, sex, sexuality, class, ability, and in some cases mental stability. The liberal definition of “justice” as an individual receiving his or her due is replaced by the collectivist idea of race and sex, etc. representation in any group at (at least) the level of the race and sex, etc. in the general population.

Any discrepancy or disparity between the representation of a category and its percentage in the general population in an institution—a business, a board of directors, a conference panel, fellowship holders, government cabinet members—is deemed an offence against “social justice,” and explained by one only one factor: bigoted race, sex, sexuality, able, and class discrimination. This false claim ignores the many familial, educational, economic, and cultural influences that can lead to disparities of outcome. Who discriminated against whites on behalf of the professionally and economically successful Asians? Who discriminated against whites and Asians and in favor of blacks in the highly paid National Football League and National Basketball Association?

Recruiting, hiring, promotion, funding, and honoring in the DEI dispensation weighs the distribution of race, sex, sexuality, ableness, and class as the primary criteria for selection, with secondary factors such as achievement and merit given lip service but ignored in practice.

What DEI means in practice is a decided preference for people of color, females, LGBTQ++, for indigenous natives, the disabled, the poor and homeless, and those with mental problems. Those who are unpreferred and rejected, because they are allegedly “privileged” and overrepresented, are whites, males, heterosexuals, Asians, and Jews.

Advocates of diversity argue not only that “social justice” requires equal outcomes for members of census categories, but also that diversity is beneficial, enriching, and advances excellence. A working group on diversity at McGill University proposed avoiding adducing any empirical evidence to support diversity’s advancing of excellence by simply redefining excellence as diversity. That keeps it simple.

Pious claims that diversity advances excellence, as a result of “diverse points of view” and “diverse lived experience,” are widespread, even if actual evidence of this is lacking. A rare field in which systematic quantitative evidence is available is the performance of diversity or “affirmative action” admissions in universities. The results should not surprise any rational person: diversity admissions with weak records do poorly on every metric, including low grades, changes to less demanding majors, and below-average graduate rates.

Let us consider the exclusion of males and whites from a demographic point of view. Even if we assume, against all evidence, that achievement, talent, and capability are distributed equally among all sectors of the population, what would be the consequences of the exclusion of males and whites? Males are half of the population. So in any ten recruitments, men would be the best candidates in five. If men are excluded from the competitions, then for half of the recruitments, the best possible candidates would be unavailable. Non-Hispanic whites make up 60% of the U.S. population, and Hispanic whites 10%, for a total of 70%, That means that out of ten recruitments, seven of the best candidates would be white. (If you want to exclude Hispanic whites from being white, then six of the best candidates would be white.) In sum, excluding males and whites means ignoring the strongest candidates in most recruitments.

Maybe it does not matter too much if sociology professors or investment advisors are diversity hires, excellent mainly in their skin color, sex, or sexuality practices. But do you want your airline pilot or surgeon to be a diversity hire? How about federal cabinet ministers running the government, or general officers guiding the military? Is it more important to have a rainbow of diversity or the highest level of functional excellence in their roles?

The West faces an existential challenge from Communist China that explicitly intends to become the dominant power in the world. Do you think that China selects its engineers, scientists, economists, and military leaders for their “diversity,” or do they select them for their achievements, intelligence, capabilities, and creative potential? Given this disparity, who would you bet on?

 

[marsh]

Historian Dr. Grabar: The Left Needs Fake History to Achieve ‘Marxist Socialist Revolution’

Grabar discussed the left's academic power brokerage and how it is pushing false historical narratives about America to achieve a "Marxist socialist revolution."

www.breitbart.com

Exclusive — Historian Dr. Mary Grabar: The Left Needs Fake History to Achieve ‘Marxist Socialist Revolution’
59

Spencer Platt/Getty Images
BRECCAN F. THIES21 Nov 202155

The left needs fake history like the debunked New York Times “1619 Project” and Critical Race Theory, and “will not remain silent … they will not rest, and their ultimate goal is a political revolution,” according to Mary Grabar, Ph.D., resident fellow at the Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization and author of Debunking the 1619 Project: Exposing the Plan to Divide America.

Grabar, who also authored Debunking Howard Zinn: Exposing the Fake History That Turned a Generation Against America, joined Breitbart News Saturday with host Matthew Boyle to discuss the left’s academic power brokerage and how they are pushing false historical narratives about the United States in order to achieve a “Marxist socialist revolution.”

“What they’re going for is a socialist revolution,” she said. “They’re indoctrinating students. The ‘1619 Project’ has been made into a 600-page book that just came out in hardcover. There’s a children’s storybook, a picture book, and the endgame is to promote socialist revolution.”

Describing the left’s use of different types of media to achieve its goals across all age groups, Grabar pointed out that “the book for high school students, a 600-page hardcover, asks students about reparations. … The questions directly address the political goal. The children’s picture book advocates for Black Lives Matter through the words of a grandmother.”

Listen:

https://soundcloud.com/breitbart%2Fmary-grabar-november-20-2021 View: https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/mary-grabar-november-20-2021
19:16 min

Remarking that the left requires a “general public to at least be sympathetic to their worldview,” which is why “they’re jamming this into people at young ages,” Boyle noted that conservatives have been asleep at the wheel, until the last couple years, in their willingness to respond to the left’s “power of academic control.”

Grabar agreed, noting that while conservatives were able to win elections, the left was “making its way into the institutions, especially education, and if you read the Port Huron statement … the founding document of the Students for a Democratic Society, that’s what they said they were going to do. And they’ve been producing generations of people who will vote for these leftist candidates and these leftist causes, and so they do have a political effect.”

“I think one of the challenges to understanding, you know, the impact of education is how these leftists frame it,” she continued. “The language that they use to try to pull the wool over taxpayers’ and citizens’ heads.”

“They have gone really far with the ‘1619 Project’ and Critical Race Theory,” Grabar noted. “The ‘1619 Project’ presents all white people as evil. There’s no mention of civil rights workers or activists. So, it presents this false narrative of American history where all white people oppressed all black people — and that is being taught to second graders. And, rightfully, parents who, especially during the pandemic, were seeing what their kids were learning, you know, were shocked. … I think people are waking up, but we need to keep the momentum going, because these people in education, as I know from having spent 20 years in the classroom, will not remain silent. They will not rest, and their ultimate goal is a political revolution.”

Taking on the fake historian and “1619 Project” author, Grabar pointed out that “Nikole Hannah-Jones has tweeted about, you know, wonders of communist Cuba and how great Fidel Castro is. … She, you know, has this conspiratorial view of history.”

Referencing a tweet in which Hannah-Jones said of the “not guilty” verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, “In this country, you can even kill white people and get away with it if those white people are fighting for Black lives. This is the legacy of 1619,” Grabar explained that “everything that … she sees wrong with America can be traced back to this one year of 1619,” including the January 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol building.

“It’s a view of history through the lens of Critical Race Theory, which is … at the bottom, a Marxist theory of history,” Grabar said. “That’s her worldview. That’s what she uses to explain current events, through that historical lens, and the endgame is a Marxist socialist revolution and also reparations.”

When asked about trying to move more of academia toward honest history, Grabar said, “Trying to convince the leftist colleagues, as I know from personal experience, is hopeless.”

Despite that, Grabar said she has been “encouraged by what has happened in elections, what happened in Virginia, and, you know, parents rose up and Glenn Youngkin addressed their concerns. … He affirmed their right to be in control of their children’s education, and I would like to keep the momentum coming. That’s what I had been agitating for, you know, over ten years ago saying, telling people, ‘You need to be aware of what these professors and educators are doing.’”

 

[MinnesotaSmith]

I can vouch for the homosexual clubs being pushed in public schools. In two of the three middle schools I've taught in this county in NW FL in the past 6 weeks, I've seen flyers (clearly written by adults, and obviously official) touting them in two of them.

 

[vestige]

I can vouch for the homosexual clubs being pushed in public schools. In two of the three middle schools I've taught in this county in NW FL in the past 6 weeks, I've seen flyers (clearly written by adults, and obviously official) touting them in two of them.

Nut cutting time

 

[marsh]

How Did Ordinary American People Become Domestic Terrorists in The Eyes of The Deep State - The Last Refuge

Barack Obama and Eric Holder did not create a weaponized DOJ and FBI; the institutions were already weaponized by the Patriot Act. Instead, what Obama and Holder did was to take the preexisting system and retool it so the weapons of government only targeted one side of the political continuum...

theconservativetreehouse.com

How Did Ordinary American People Become Domestic Terrorists in The Eyes of The Deep State
November 19, 2021 | Sundance | 232 Comments

Barack Obama and Eric Holder did not create a weaponized DOJ and FBI; the institutions were already weaponized by the Patriot Act.

Instead, what Obama and Holder did was to take the preexisting system and retool it so the weapons of government only targeted one side of the political continuum. This point is where many people understandably get confused.

In the era shortly after 9/11, the DC national security apparatus was constructed to preserve continuity of government and simultaneously view all Americans as potential threats. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) were created specifically for this purpose.

What Barack Obama and Eric Holder did with that new construct was refine the internal targeting mechanisms so that only their ideological opposition became the target of the new national security system. This is very important to understand as you dig deeper into this research outline.

Washington DC created the modern national security apparatus immediately and hurriedly after 9/11/01. DHS came along in 2002, and within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 the ODNI was formed. When Barack Obama and Eric Holder arrived a few years later, those newly formed institutions were viewed as opportunities to create a very specific national security apparatus that would focus almost exclusively against their political opposition.

The preexisting Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Dept of Justice (DOJ) were then repurposed to become two of the four pillars of the domestic national security apparatus.

However, this new construct would have a targeting mechanism based on political ideology. The DHS, ODNI, DOJ and FBI became the four pillars of this new institution. Atop these pillars is where you will find the Fourth Branch of Government.

We were not sleeping when this happened, we were wide awake. However, we were stunningly distracted by the economic collapse that was taking place in 2006 and 2007 when the engineers behind Obama started to assemble the design. By the time Obama took office in 2009, we sensed something profound was shifting, but we can only see exactly what shifted in the aftermath. The four pillars were put into place, and a new Fourth Branch of Government was quietly created.

As time passed, and the system operators became familiar with their new tools, technology allowed the tentacles of the system to reach out and touch us. That is when we first started to notice that something very disconcerting was happening. Those four pillars are the root of it, and if we take the time to understand how the Fourth Branch originated, questions about this current state of perpetual angst will start to make sense.

Grab a cup of your favorite beverage, and take a walk with me as we outline how this was put together. You might find many of the questions about our current state of political affairs beginning to make a lot more sense.

Remember, it is not my intent to outline the entire history of how we got to this place where the intelligence community now acts as the superseding Fourth Branch of Government. Such an effort would be exhausting and likely take our discussion away from understanding the current dynamic.

History provided enough warnings from Dwight D. Eisenhower (military), to John F. Kennedy (CIA), to Richard Nixon (FBI), to all modern versions of warnings and frustrations from HPSCI Devin Nunes and ODNI Ric Grenell. None of those prior reference points are invalid, and all documented outlines of historic reference are likely true and accurate. However, a generational review is not useful, as the reference impacting us ‘right now‘ gets lost.

Instead, we pick up the expansive and weaponized intelligence system as it manifests after 9/11/01, and my goal is to highlight how the modern version of the total intelligence apparatus has now metastasized into a Fourth Branch of Government. It is this superseding branch that now touches and influences every facet of our life.

If we take the modern construct, originating at the speed of technological change, we can also see how the oversight or “check/balance” in our system of government became functionally obsolescent.

After many years of granular research about the intelligence apparatus inside our government, in the summer of 2020 I visited Washington DC to ask specific questions. My goal was to go where the influence agents within government actually operate, and to discover the people deep inside the institutions no one elected and few people pay attention to.

It was during this process when I discovered how information is purposefully put into containment silos; essentially a formal process to block the flow of information between agencies and between the original branches. While frustrating to discover, the silo effect was important because understanding the communication between networks leads to our ability to reconcile conflict between what we perceive and what’s actually taking place.

After days of research and meetings in DC during 2020; amid a town that was serendipitously shut down due to COVID-19; I found a letter slid under the door of my room in a nearly empty hotel with an introduction of sorts. The subsequent discussions were perhaps the most important. After many hours of specific questions and answers on specific examples, I realized why our nation is in this mess. That is when I discovered the fourth and superseding branch of government, the Intelligence Branch.

I am going to explain how the Intelligence Branch works: (1) to control every other branch of government; (2) how it functions as an entirely independent branch of government with no oversight; (3) how and why it was created to be independent from oversight; (4) what is the current mission of the IC Branch, and most importantly (5) who operates it.

The Intelligence Branch is an independent functioning branch of government, it is no longer a subsidiary set of agencies within the Executive Branch as most would think. To understand the Intelligence Branch, we need to drop the elementary school civics class lessons about three coequal branches of government and replace that outlook with the modern system that created itself.

The Intelligence Branch functions much like the State Dept, through a unique set of public-private partnerships that support it. Big Tech industry collaboration with intelligence operatives is part of that functioning; almost like an NGO. However, the process is much more important than most think. In this problematic perspective of a corrupt system of government, the process is the flaw – not the outcome.

There are people making decisions inside this little known, unregulated and out-of-control branch of government that impact every facet of our lives.

None of the people operating deep inside the Intelligence Branch were elected; and our elected representative House members genuinely do not know how the system works. I assert this position affirmatively because I have talked to House and Senate staffers, including the chiefs of staff for multiple House & Senate committee seats. They are not malicious people; however, they are genuinely clueless of things that happen outside their silo. That is part of the purpose of me explaining it, with examples, in full detail with sunlight.

We begin….
In April of 2016, the FBI launched a counterintelligence operation against presidential candidate Donald Trump. The questioning about that operation is what New York Representative Elise Stefanik cites in March of 2017, approximately 11 months later (First Two Minutes).

View: https://youtu.be/HlXXZQgh72Y
7:09 min

Things to note:
♦ Notice how FBI Director James Comey just matter-of-factly explains no one outside the DOJ was informed about the FBI operation. Why? Because that’s just the way things are done. His justification for unilateral operations was “because of the sensitivity of the matter“, totally ignoring any constitutional or regulatory framework for oversight; because, well, quite simply, there isn’t any. The intelligence apparatus inside the DOJ/FBI can, and does, operate based on their own independent determinations of authority.

♦ Notice also how FBI Director Comey shares his perspective that informing the National Security Council (NSC) is the equivalent of notifying the White House. The FBI leadership expressly believe they bear no responsibility to brief the Chief Executive. As long as they tell some unknown, unelected, bureaucratic entity inside the NSC, their unwritten responsibility to inform the top of their institutional silo is complete. If the IC wants to carve out the Oval Office, they simply plant information inside the NSC and, from their perspective, their civic responsibility to follow checks-and-balances is complete. This is an intentional construct.

♦ Notice how Comey obfuscates notification to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), by avoiding the fact James Clapper was the DNI from outset of the counterintelligence operation throughout the remainder of Obama’s term. When I get deeper into the process, we will understand how the Intelligence Branch has intentionally used the creation of the DNI position (established post 9/11/01) as a method to avoid oversight, not enhance it. Keeping an oblivious doofus like James Clapper in position held strategic value [Doofus Reminder HERE].

That video of James Comey being questioned by Elise Stefanik was the first example given to me by someone who knew the background of everything that was taking place preceding that March 20, 2017, hearing. That FBI reference point is a key to understand how the Intelligence Branch operates with unilateral authority above Congress (legislative branch), above the White House (executive branch), and even above the court system (judicial branch).

Also, watch this short video of James Clapper, because it is likely many readers have forgotten, and likely even more readers have never seen it. Watch closely how then White House national security adviser John Brennan is responding in that video. This is before Brennan became CIA Director, this is when Brennan was helping Barack Obama put the pillars into place. WATCH:

View: https://youtu.be/3Dd7dR-esLE
.54 min

[Sidebar: Every time I post this video it gets scrubbed from YouTube (example), so save it if you ever want to see it again.]

The video of James Clapper highlights how the ODNI position (created with good national security intention) ended up becoming the fulcrum for modern weaponization, and is now an office manipulated by agencies with a vested interest in retaining power. The Intelligence Branch holds power over the ODNI through their influence and partnership with the body that authorizes the power within it, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI).

Factually, the modern intelligence apparatus uses checks and balances in their favor. The checks create silos of proprietary information, classified information, vaults of information that work around oversight issues. The silos are part of the problem.

Ironically, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created in the aftermath of 9/11/01 expressly to eliminate the silos of information which they felt led to a domestic terrorist attack that could have been prevented. The ODNI was created specifically upon the recommendation of the 9/11 commission.

The intent was to create a central hub of intelligence information, inside the Executive Branch, where the CIA, NSA, DoD, DoS, and DIA could deposit their unique intelligence products and a repository would be created so that domestic intelligence operations, like the DOJ and FBI could access them when needed to analyze threats to the U.S. This, they hoped, would ensure the obvious flags missed in the 9/11 attacks would not be missed again.

The DNI office created a problem for those who operate in the shadows of proprietary information. You’ll see how it was critical to install a person uniquely skilled in being an idiot, James Clapper, into that willfully blind role while intelligence operatives worked around the office to assemble the Intelligence Branch of Government.

• The last federal budget that flowed through the traditional budgetary process was signed into law in September of 2007 for fiscal year 2008 by George W. Bush. Every budget since then has been a fragmented process of continuing resolutions and individual spending bills.

Why does this matter? Because many people think defunding the Intelligence Community is a solution; it is not…. at least, not yet. Worse yet, the corrupt divisions deep inside the U.S. intelligence system can now fund themselves from multinational private sector partnerships (banks, corporations and foreign entities).

• When Democrats took over the House of Representatives in January 2007, they took office with a plan. Nancy Pelosi became Speaker, and Democrats controlled the Senate where Harry Reid was Majority Leader. Barack Obama was a junior senator from Illinois.

Pelosi and Reid intentionally did not advance a budget in 2008 (for fiscal year 2009) because their plan included installing Barack Obama (and all that came with him) with an open checkbook made even more lucrative by a worsening financial crisis and a process called baseline budgeting. Baseline budgeting means the prior fiscal year budget is accepted as the starting point for the next year budget. All previous expenditures are baked into the cake within baseline budgeting.

Massive bailouts preceded Obama’s installation due to U.S. economic collapse, and massive bailouts continued after his installation. This is the ‘never let a crisis go to waste’ aspect. TARP (Troubled Asset Recovery Program), auto bailouts (GM), and the massive stimulus spending bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, ie. those shovel ready jobs) were all part of the non budget spending. The federal reserve assisted with Quantitative Easing (QE1 and QE2) as congress passed various Porkulous spending bills further spending and replacing the formal budget process.

Note: There has never been a budget passed in the normal/traditional process since September of 2007.

• While Obama’s radical ‘transformation‘ was triggered across a broad range of government institutions, simultaneously spending on the U.S. military was cut, but spending on the intelligence apparatus expanded. We were all distracted by Obamacare, and the Republican Party wanted to keep us that way. However, in the background there was a process of transformation taking place that included very specific action by Eric Holder and targeted effort toward the newest executive agency the ODNI.

The people behind Obama, those same people now behind Joe Biden, knew from years of strategic planning that ‘radical transformation’ would require control over specific elements inside the U.S. government. Eric Holder played a key role in his position as U.S. Attorney General in the DOJ.

AG Holder recruited ideologically aligned political operatives who were aware of the larger institutional objectives. One of those objectives was weaponizing the DOJ-National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) a division inside the DOJ that had no inspector general oversight. For most people the DOJ-NSD weaponization surfaced with a hindsight awakening of the DOJ-NSD targeting candidate Donald Trump many years later. However, by then the Holder crew had executed almost eight full years of background work.

• The second larger Obama/Holder objective was control over the FBI. Why was that important?

Because the FBI does the domestic investigative work on anyone who needs or holds a security clearance. The removal of security clearances could be used as a filter to further build the internal ideological army they were assembling. Additionally, with new power in the ODNI created as a downstream consequence of the Patriot Act, new protocols for U.S. security clearances were easy to justify.

Carefully selecting fellow ideological travelers was facilitated by this filtration within the security clearance process. How does that issue later manifest? Just look around at how politicized every intelligence agency has become, specifically including the FBI.


[Long article. Read the rest here: How Did Ordinary American People Become Domestic Terrorists in The Eyes of The Deep State - The Last Refuge ]

 

[marsh]

Home - www.independentsentinel.com

Home

www.independentsentinel.com

Chicago Protest: “The Only Solution Is Communist Revolution”

By
M. Dowling
-November 20, 2021

Will the media report about the communist revolution in various cities? The answer is ‘no’ since they agree with them.

The communists, who run wild and free without any FBI interference, are using an innocent 18-year old named Kyle Rittenhouse as an excuse to call for revolution. If it wasn’t Kyle Rittenhouse, they’d find someone else.

The entire establishment tried to destroy Kyle Rittenhouse. Anyone who supported him was also canceled.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1462177628580941828

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1462177628580941828
.25 min

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1462192063546638339

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1462192063546638339
.42 min

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Watch: Rhode Island Teacher Warns CRT "Absolutely Everywhere" In Schools

MONDAY, NOV 22, 2021 - 05:48 PM
Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

A middle school English teacher in Providence, Rhode Island has warned that critical race theory, which teaches children they should feel guilty for being white, is “absolutely everywhere” in schools in the area and that it is causing “great harm and racial divide and hostility between children.”



Ramona Bessinger described to RT host Steve Malzberg how she has been barred from giving classes for speaking out against her school district’s “radicalized” CRT “culture”, noting that there used to be “lots of diversity [and] lots of multicultural materials” in the curriculum, but now its essentially all CRT.

“We’re not teaching critical race theory. It’s implicit in the culture,” Bessinger explained, adding “It is implicit in all the reading materials. It is implicit in all the projects that the kids are doing.”

“It really has to stop,” she urged, adding “It’s in the plot narratives; it’s in the characterization; it’s in the imagery, it’s in the art projects, the history class, the English classes.”

“It is in the language that we are told to use in our professional development,” the teacher further warned, adding. “It is absolutely everywhere.”

“Just to speak to the fact that our libraries are being dismantled and books are being moved into archaic basement rooms around the school or flat-out thrown out,” Bessinger emphasized, adding “there’s a whole shift taking place and we really need to pay attention to this.”

She ominously added, “I don’t believe we’re going to recognize our country if this is allowed to take place because the culture is changing from within our schools and it’s changing rapidly.”

“Once they turn children against you and kids start believing this narrative that you are somehow racist, then it’s over,” she further warned.

Watch:

View: https://youtu.be/RJwX0VQ4nBY
8:04 min

Leftists are adamant that CRT is not being taught in schools, as the following video highlights. However, as Ramona Bessinger points out, it doesn’t have to officially be on the curriculum to exist in schools.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1458890266102820907

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1458890266102820907
2:12 min

Parents nationwide are under attack for speaking out against CRT in schools, with the latest example coming in Loudoun County again, where a member of the Board of Supervisors labeled concerned mothers and fathers as ‘alt right’, despite many being either black or Jewish.

 

[marsh]

Survey: 63% of Americans Believe Parents Have ‘Final Say’ in Education

A supermajority of Americans believes parents should have the “final say” in the content of what their children are taught in public schools.

www.breitbart.com

Survey: 63% of Americans Believe Parents Have ‘Final Say’ in Public Education

5

gorodenkoff/Getty Images
DR. SUSAN BERRY22 Nov 202113

A supermajority of Americans surveyed say parents are the primary educators of their children and should have the “final say” in the content of what their children are taught in public schools.

A survey conducted by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty this week revealed 63 percent of respondents believe “parents should have the final say … and should be able to opt out of morally objectionable or inappropriate content,” while 37 percent say, “public schools should have the final say” with no “opt out” for parents.

“Majorities of Democrat, Independent, and Republican respondents all sided with this opinion, though to varying degrees,” the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty noted, adding:

Among Democrats, a slight majority, 52 percent, sided with this opinion, compared with 64 percent of Independents and 74 percent of Republicans. Whether respondents had children in the home or not had little impact on opinion—66 percent of those who had children in the home sided with this opinion compared to 61 percent of those without children.

The question was part of the Becket Fund’s third annual Religious Freedom Index, which is, according to Becket, a “holistic view of changes in American attitudes on religious liberty,” based on responses from 1,000 Americans to questions that cover a wide array of religious liberty protections under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Survey participants’ responses to 21 questions are used to compile a “Religious Freedom Index,” a measure of support for religious liberty in the United States.

In 2019, the Religious Freedom Index was 67. The index dropped to 66 last year, and, this year, reached 68.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1443021016838647818

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1443021016838647818
1:00 min

The results of the education survey question come weeks after a Washington Post poll found education was the top issue for Virginia voters in the governor’s race, one that ultimately handed Governor-elect Glenn Youngkin (R) a victory over former Democrat Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe.

Youngkin repeatedly listened to the concerns of Virginia parents regarding the teaching of tenets of Critical Race Theory, LGBTQ activist curricula, and mandates related to COVID-19, asserting, “I believe parents should be in charge of their kids’ education.”

McAuliffe, however, clearly stated, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

 

[marsh]

Are You Ready to Be an American Kulak? - Revolver News

The American kulak must understand that the GAE regime that hates him must be torn down completely, or he will be destroyed.

www.revolver.news

← Front page / Exclusive
Are You Ready To Be An American Kulak?
November 22, 2021 (7h ago)

If one takes the ideologues who rule over America at their word, then the governing principles of this country’s reigning regime are things like fairness, equality, diversity, or “anti-racism.”

But of course, anybody with a brain today isn’t taking America’s rulers at their word. It is obvious, and has been for many years now, that there is no spirit of “fairness” or “anti-racism” in the heart of their ideology. Instead, the spirit at the heart of America’s leadership is bitter, envious, resentful, hateful.

Who is it hateful toward? You know who. The modern American regime is built on explicit, institutionalized hostility to the people who most resemble the great Americans of the past. It is anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian, anti-rural, and anti-middle class. The more of these traits a person has, the more worthy of hate they become. The more the Globalist American Empire decays and squanders the inheritance it was given, the more bile and hatred it directs against those who symbolize what came before.

But those on the receiving end of this new discriminatory regime may not appreciate its full scope or the ultimate fate that the Globalist American Empire has planned for them. They may see recent anti-white animus as a temporary spell, or a limited affair that can be waited out.

They are wrong. America’s shrinking white middle class are the target of an ever-intensifying cycle, whose mechanics are ripped straight from another oppressive regime, the Soviet Union of the 1920s and 30s.

The white American middle class have become America’s kulaks — Blamed for every problem, vilified for every success, and deserving of every punishment. Their destruction has become a fundamental goal of American political life.

What was a kulak? The term comes from Russian, and like so many other words popularized by a radical left regime, the definition was anything but stable. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn explained a half-century ago in The Gulag Archipelago:

In Russian a kulak is a miserly, dishonest rural trader who grows rich not by his own labor but through someone else’s, through usury and operating as a middleman. In every locality even before the Revolution such kulaks could be numbered on one’s fingers. And the Revolution totally destroyed their basis of activity. Subsequently, after 1917, by a transfer of meaning, the name kulakhegan to be applied (in official and propaganda literature, whence it moved into general usage) to all those who in any way hired workers, even if it was only when they were temporarily short of working hands in their own families.
…
[T]he inflation of this scathing term kulak proceeded relentlessly, and by 1930 all strong peasants in general were being so called — all peasants strong in management, strong in work, or even strong merely in convictions. The term kulak was used to smash the strength of the peasantry.
…
[A]nd now these peasants, whose breadgrain had fed Russia in 1928, were hastily uprooted by local good-for-nothings and city people sent in from outside. Like raging beasts, abandoning every concept of “humanity,” abandoning all humane principles which had evolved through the millennia, they began to round up the very best farmers and their families, and to drive them, stripped of their possessions, naked, into the northern wastes, into the tundra and the taiga.

In short order, kulaks were the catch-all class enemy for the Bolshevik regime. Peasant uprisings were “kulak revolts,” because it was inconceivable that ordinary peasants might rebel against the workers’ paradise. And any ordinary civilians who opposed agricultural collectivization, or were simply seen as a threat to local leaders, were apt to be branded kulaks or kulak-enablers.

The consequences of being a kulak were lethal, as shown by Lenin’s “Hanging Order” of 1918:

Comrades! The revolt by the five kulak volost’s must be suppressed without mercy. The interest of the entire revolution demands this, because we have now before us our final decisive battle with the kulaks. We need to set an example.
1) You need to hang (hang without fail, so that the public sees) at least 100 notorious kulaks, the rich, and the bloodsuckers.
2) Publish their names.
3) Take away all of their grain.
4) Execute the hostages – in accordance with yesterday’s telegram.

This needs to be accomplished in such a way, that people for hundreds of miles around will see, tremble, know and scream out: let’s choke and strangle those blood-sucking kulaks.

Telegraph us acknowledging receipt and execution of this.
Yours, Lenin
P.S. Use your toughest people for this.

After the civil war, the purge of kulaks paused, but in 1928 Joseph Stalin reignited the persecution with a furious campaign of “de-kulakization.” State propaganda organs collectively denounced the kulaks as a class, deserving of annihilation, and all the while the definition kept expanding.

By 1930, a kulak was defined as anybody who used hired labor, owned a mill or other processing equipment, rented land, engaged in moneylending, or otherwise collected an income through non-labor sources. Kulaks were accused of sabotaging the Soviet government by withholding grain from the market and otherwise being the source of the state’s problems.

And so, throughout the 1930s, “de-kulakization” was the order of the day. Kulaks has their land and grain seized without compensation, and were herded to far-off labor camps. As the kulaks were liquidated, the USSR’s agricultural system fell into chaos, plunging the country into a famine which killed millions. But these failures only escalated the amount of hatred heaped onto the kulak “wreckers,” who continued to face deportation or an executioner’s bullet. Such was the fate of the left’s designated enemies.

An important component of de-kulakization is that the kulaks were a scapegoat. From the beginning they were an easy target; envy of the haves by the have-nots is a constant of all human history, and in Communism’s case was foundational to its whole worldview. But Communism didn’t work, so the core ideas of the USSR were fundamentally impossible. When harvests, industrial output, and overall growth failed to meet the Communist Party’s lofty promises, this led to even more hatred heaped on the kulaks. The kulaks were a living, humiliating embodiment of the system’s failure: Peasants who succeeded based on their own abilities and not as a collective achievement of socialist will.

And so it is again, today. Who is the American kulak? Like in the USSR, the definition is loose and ever-expanding. Some of the traits that push one toward kulakdom are obvious: Superficial markers like being white and male. But other kulak traits are less immediately obvious. They are the social markers of kulakdom: Being a small business owner, being the married parent of young children, being a heritage American descended from those who sailed on the Mayflower, signed the Declaration of Independence, or fought in the Civil War.

Like the Russian kulaks, American kulaks represent the national hinterland. They are physically and politically remote from any center of real power, yet vilified as the source of all the nation’s problems. Unlike the Russian kulak, American kulakdom is racialized: To be a white is to be a kulak, unless one is admitted to a narrow band of the elect. But it is not exclusively whites who are kulaks. Just as in Russia a poor peasant who aggravated the regime was swiftly branded a kulak, a non-white who makes too much common cause with “white” priorities will also be a kulak, as NYU professor Cristina Beltrán wrote in The Washington Post:

Rooted in America’s ugly history of white supremacy, indigenous dispossession and anti-blackness, multiracial whiteness is an ideology invested in the unequal distribution of land, wealth, power and privilege. … Multiracial whiteness reflects an understanding of whiteness as a political color and not simply a racial identity — a discriminatory worldview in which feelings of freedom and belonging are produced through the persecution and dehumanization of others.
…
Multiracial whiteness offers citizens of every background the freedom to call Muslims terrorists, demand that undocumented immigrants be rounded up and deported, deride BLM as a movement of thugs and criminals, and accuse Democrats of being blood-drinking pedophiles.

The American kulak, whatever his color, is a person who understands the great country that America was. They are a person who expects and demands safe streets, effective infrastructure, and quality public schools, and who helped create and perpetuate those things in the past.

The American kulak is a person who remembers and longs for a country that didn’t hate its own people, its own heroes, its own history. The American kulak is a person who believes in all those mundane traits that CRT handouts describe as facets of “white supremacy.”



Obviously, it’s not entirely clear that America’s regime is plotting the literal extermination of the kulaks (though they don’t care much if they fall victim to “mostly peaceful” protests). Rather, the important parallel with the Soviet case is this: America’s kulak class are the only acceptable villains of American society.

Just like the kulak farmers who drew envy for their success, every day the ordinary white middle class continues to exist at all is a daily indictment of the system. Every day their children succeed in school is a day that the “racial achievement gap” fails to go away. Every home they buy widens the ownership gap. Every successful business they create is one that doesn’t qualify as a minority-owned business.

At this point, it is routine and casual for the press, the academy, entertainment, and the government itself to stoke fear, envy, and hatred for white middle-class Americans. They are the villain caste of American life. It is impossible for kulak-Americans to enjoy any advantage over any other group of Americans, and not have that advantage attributed to racism, greed, genocide, and generational theft.

In September, The Atlantic published an article titled “American Gentry.” The article’s message, in short, is to forget about America’s billionaire class or the incompetent power elites of Washington D.C. or New York. No, the real focus of animosity should be local small business owners, who are, of course, “mostly white.”

The American gentry stands at the apex of the social order throughout huge swaths of the country. It shapes our economic and political world thanks to its resources and comparatively large numbers, yet it’s practically invisible to the popular eye.

Forget the skyscrapers and opulent country mansions, the elite family dynamics of Succession and the antics of the Kardashians and Kardashian-adjacent; look instead to the far more numerous multimillion-dollar planned golf-course communities and their controlling homeowners’ associations. Think about the informal property-development deals struck between sweating local grandees at the country-club bar in Odessa, Texas, or Knoxville, Tennessee.

Power resides in gated communities and local philanthropic boards, in the ownership of staggering numbers of fast-food franchises, and in the smooth transmission of a large construction company’s assets to a new generation of small-yacht owners.

Power can be found in group photos of half-soused, overweight men in ill-fitting polo shirts, and in the millionaires ready and willing to fly their private jets to Washington, D.C., in support of a certain would-be authoritarian. The yeoman developer of luxury condominiums, the single-digit-millionaire meatpacking-plant owner, the property-management entrepreneur: These were the people who, remembering or inventing their tradition of dominance over their towns and cities, flocked to Make America Great Again. [The Atlantic]

When The New York Times staggered around last year looking for the reason school achievement gaps still exist, they knew who to blame: Nice white parents. Revolver said of that podcast last year:

No matter what these white parents do, it’s always bad. It’s bad when they transfer into a non-white school, as in the first episode. But in the second and third episodes, they are vilified for not attending these schools as well. In the third episode, an amorphous blob of “white parents” are attacked for getting a gifted program created at a New York middle school. According to Joffe-Walt, non-white students were kept out by “biased questions” on tests, though not one such question is ever read for the listener.

This tone persists throughout all of Nice White Parents. Not a tone of hatred, per se, but one of disgust, and collective race-based condemnation. White families are “unreliable;” they “pay no attention to the actual voices and needs of families of color.” They are greedy: at one point Joffe-Walt says the key question for fixing schools is “how do we stop white parents from hoarding all the resources?”

Some of the tells of kulak-hatred are subtle: For the past year, the Associated Press, The New York Times, and countless other press outlets have been capitalizing every race except white.

According to the AP, this change was explicitly made because whites have no “shared history” and never face discrimination based on skin color:

AP’s style is now to capitalize Black in a racial, ethnic or cultural sense, conveying an essential and shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black, including those in the African diaspora and within Africa. The lowercase black is a color, not a person. AP style will continue to lowercase the term white in racial, ethnic and cultural senses.

We also now capitalize Indigenous in reference to original inhabitants of a place.
These decisions align with long-standing capitalization of distinct racial and ethnic identifiers such as Latino, Asian American and Native American. … White people generally do not share the same history and culture, or the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color. …[C]apitalizing the term white, as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs.

But in 2021, most attacks require no such subtly:

A professor at Rutgers University said that white people can’t afford to have children and “kind of deserve it” in a September virtual conference hosted by a prominent black-oriented publication.

Brittney Cooper, a professor of women’s and gender studies and Africana studies at Rutgers, made the statement during a session of the Root Institute conference.
…

“White people’s birth rates are going down… because they literally cannot afford to put their children, newer generations, into the middle class… It’s super perverse, and also they kind of deserve it.”

Cooper also said that she wants to say, “We gotta take these motherf*****s out,” but that she can’t because “I don’t believe in a project of violence” and that “our souls would suffer” from doing so.

“I think that white people are committed to being villains in the aggregate,” she said.


Part 1 of 2

 

[marsh]

Part 2 of 2

To be a kulak means that one presumptively has no rights or interests worthy of defense. Consider the reaction to the protests against critical race theory in Virginia’s schools during the recent gubernatorial race:



For Juan Williams, and the rest of America’s ruling class, the argument simply ends there: The parents protesting are “white” (either literally or politically), so they deserve no consideration whatsoever. They certainly don’t deserve the right not to be demonized in state-funded schools. They are kulaks. They exist to be trampled.

When exit polls in Virginia suggested that white women had supported winning gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin, they immediately became the designated villains, bearing racial guilt for the Democratic Party’s failures.

According to Pulitzer Prize winner, MacArthur “Genius,” and all-around clown Nikole Hannah Jones, it is a sign of “immaturity” and “selfishness” when kulaks try to escape “collective responsibility” for the actions of those who died centuries before them.

Who wore it better?

What’s a good way to administer collective punishment to the kulaks? Obviously, “reparations” paid out to every group except them is one way. But another, more blunt instrument is simply denying medical care on the basis of race, which is already happening around the country.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459591738809622532

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1459591738809622532
.57 min

Simply being happy, or present in too many numbers, is enough to set off the modern regime’s kulak alarm bells.



The most obvious anti-kulak measure of all, though, is the permanent Camp of the Saints at the U.S. border, whose obvious purpose is to wash away the kulak class’s demographic importance beneath a tide of poorer, more pliant recent immigrants.

Why must the American kulaks be destroyed? Because, fundamentally, they are an obstacle. An obstacle to everything.

American small businesses run lean operations, which cannot hand fat sinecures to useless, obese Diversity, Inclusion, Equity commissars. They have far more to fear from rioting, looting, shoplifting, and general mayhem; their work is in the real world rather than cyberspace, and if their place of business is burned or plundered, they don’t have a thousand others locations to pick up the slack. Their belief in merit and work stands in the way of a society where wealth is doled out based on birth and class. Their basic goodness and worthiness is what renders the demands of worthless, hateful Bioleninist freak shows so pathetic and risible. Their ability to recognize and appreciate fine things in life, whether it’s meat or living space or a personal vehicle, stands in the way of the campaign to reduce Americans to atomized bugmen living in pods and eating crickets.



America’s de-kulakization process is, above all, about breaking and demoralizing Americans so they will no longer demand or expect better, and providing a villain for the Globalist American Empire to project its failures onto.

The American kulak class must understand the nature of the campaign against it, if it is to survive. American kulaks are not participating in ordinary democracy. They are not experiencing ordinary ideological disagreement with a person who has their best interests at heart. They cannot reason with their foes by pointing out all the harm they will suffer from the American regime’s suicidal policies, whether it’s emptying prisons or obliterating the border or replacing mathematics with race propaganda in schools.

American kulaks must realize that the hatred brought against them will not dissipate as the ruling elite’s policies fail. Instead, hatred will intensify, as every year of failure simply shows that America’s bedrock of white male privilege is deeper and more pervasive than previously imagined. New angles of attack will be found, and new discriminatory laws imposed, to deny the kulak opportunity, to make him poorer and more atomized and more addicted.

The American kulak must realize that this struggle can only end in two ways. Either the regime that hates him will be torn down completely — or he will be destroyed.

 

[marsh]

LAPD used data from tool that enables secret online spying

Increasingly common.

reclaimthenet.org

Police caught using online spy tool to plot “pre-crimes”
Increasingly common.

• By Ken Macon
• Posted 12:38 pm

Tech startup Voyager Labs helps law enforcement agencies use what you post on social media and who you interact with to predict whether you have or “plan to” commit a crime. It is one of a growing number of companies that claim they can use social media analysis to help predict and solve crimes and has opened many questions about privacy.

Non-profit organization Brennan Center obtained documents through freedom of information requests that revealed the strategies Voyager uses violate the first amendment protections. For instance, the software uses posts about Islam and social media usernames indicating Arab pride as signs of potential inclination towards extremism. But they can also be used to target any group.

Additionally, according to the documents, obtained by The Guardian, the company uses questionable processes to access data on social media, and even enables law enforcement officers to infiltrate groups and private accounts using fake personas.

The company started nine years ago and has offices all over the world including New York, Washington DC, and Israel. The company is one of a growing number of tech firms exploring social media analytics for use in law enforcement. Others include Media Sonar, Palantir, PredPol, and Geofeedia.

The technologies provided by these tech firms are attractive to law enforcement, because they promise to automate and expedite the process of preventing crime. The documents obtained by the Brennan Center show that LAPD has been trialing Voyager Labs software since 2019. The department has also worked or considered working with other such companies.

According to experts, such kinds of software are a privacy nightmare for the public and potentially illegal as they criminalize otherwise legal behavior such as associating with certain people.

The documents revealed that Voyager uses a “guilty-by-association” model. The Guardian’s coverage of the story explained:

“Voyager software hoovers up all the public information available on a person or topic – including posts, connections and even emojis – analyzes and indexes it and then, in some cases, cross-references it with non-public information.

“Internal documents show the technology creates a topography of a person’s entire social media existence, specifically looking at users’ posts as well as their connections, and how strong each of those relationships are.

“The software visualizes how a person’s direct connections are connected to each other, where all of those connections work, and any “indirect connections” (people with at least four mutual friends). Voyager also detects any indirect connections between a subject and other people the customer has previously searched for.”

New York University’s data journalism professor and author of “Artificial Intelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World” Meredith Broussard likened Voyager’s systems to the systems used for online ad targeting.

Online ad targeting systems group people into “affinity groups” based on shared interests.

“So instead of grouping people into buckets like ‘pet owners’, what Voyager seems to be doing is putting people into ‘buckets’ of likely criminals,” Broussard explained.

She added: “It’s a ‘guilt by association’ system.”

Voyager’s software supplements the publicly available data with information it acquires through warrants and subpoenas and what it calls an “active persona.”

The company obtains data such as private text messages and location of a subject through warrants and subpoenas obtained by law enforcement agencies.

John Hamasaki, a criminal defense lawyer and member of the police commission in San Francisco, said: “The degree to which private information is being seized, purportedly lawfully under search warrants, is just way over-broad.”

He added that the fact that the police can now analyze the data through AI technology provided by companies such as Voyager raises civil liberties and privacy concerns.

The documents do not contain many details on the so-called premium “active persona” service. The company states that clients can use “avatars” for the purposes of collecting and analyzing “information that is otherwise inaccessible” on several networks.

Voyager claims the service can be used to access encrypted information on Telegram, and a 2019 roadmap showed that it was planning on rolling out the “active persona” feature on WhatsApp and Instagram.

 

[marsh]

Biden to Hire 80,000 New IRS Agents to Target the Middle Class and Conservatives - Just Like the Obama Regime Did | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Here’s a blast from the Obama regime’s past– The Obama IRS targeted over 400 conservative groups for unprecedented scrutiny.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Biden to Hire 80,000 New IRS Agents to Target the Middle Class and Conservatives – Just Like the Obama Regime Did

By Jim Hoft
Published November 23, 2021 at 8:00am

Here’s a blast from the Obama regime’s past–

The Obama IRS targeted over 400 conservative groups for unprecedented scrutiny.

The IRS Conservative Targeting Scandal involved:

• Hundreds of conservative groups
• At least 5 pro-Israel groups
• Constitutional groups
• Groups that criticized Obama administration
• At least two pro-life groups
• An 83 year-old Nazi concentration camp survivor
• A 180 year-old Baptist paper
• A Texas voting-rights group
• A Hollywood conservative group
• Conservative activists and businesses
• At least one conservative Hispanic group
• IRS continued to target groups even after the scandal was exposed
• 10% of Tea Party donors were audited by the IRS
• And… 100% of the 501(c)(4) Groups Audited by IRS Were Conservative

A Congressional report revealed 10% of Tea Party donors were audited by the IRS. This is 10 times more often than regular Americans.

Like most scandals by Democrat operatives, no one served time for these criminal actions. No one was fired. Not one single person lost their retirement.

Now Joe Biden is going to hire 87,000 more IRS agents to crack down on average Americans.
Lauren Boehbert and Elon Musk weighed in on Biden’s IRS plans.



They’re right.

The IRS agents will be ordered to target ordinary Americans — especially the conservative kind.

We all know it’s true.

The New York Post reported:

Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Rep. Lauren Boebert teamed up to rip President Joe Biden’s effort to double the staff of the Internal Revenue Service in a bid to crack down on ultra-wealthy tax cheats.

To put the proposed staffing boost into context, the Colorado Republican compared it to the workforces of Tesla and Apple, which employ 70,000 and 154,000 individuals, respectively.

“An increase of 87,000 supposedly to monitor the 614 billionaires in America,” she tweeted Sunday, prompting a response from one such billionaire, Musk — worth some $311 billion.

“The IRS already has dedicated audit teams for high net worth individuals. The doubling of staff is for everyone else,” Musk warned, without offering any further explanation.

The proposed hiring spree is part of the Biden administration’s Build Back Better agenda as it seeks to boost funding to the IRS by some $80 billion and crack down on tax dodges, according to Politico.

Previously…

IRS Finds 6,924 Documents Related to Obama Tea Party Targeting -- Two Years After FOIA Request | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

The Obama IRS targeted over 400 conservative groups for intrusive scrutiny.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[marsh]

CITIZEN FREE PRESS

The Greatest News Site On The Internet. Home of CFP Nation.

citizenfreepress.com

Jason Whitlock nails it…
Posted by Kane on November 23, 2021 12:29 pm

View: https://youtu.be/C5PgzjUG1c4
2:54 min
‘This was a calculated strategy to disarm America’

 

[marsh]

["Fairness" vs "Equity"]

CITIZEN FREE PRESS

The Greatest News Site On The Internet. Home of CFP Nation.

citizenfreepress.com

‘Non-white votes will count more than white votes’…
Posted by Kane on November 23, 2021 1:30 pm






Ontario teachers union changes rules so that non-white votes count more than white votes

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation for district 20 announced on Monday a change in their rules so that non-white union members would have their vote weighted more than white members.

Full story here…

Check out the video

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1461855919264997383

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1461855919264997383
2:09 min

Check out these tweets…


Read the full thread here…

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

DOJ Intervenes To Defend Section 230 In Trump's Facebook Lawsuit

TUESDAY, NOV 23, 2021 - 09:40 PM
Authored by Ivan Pentchoukov via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Monday intervened in former President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against Facebook in order to defend the constitutionality of Section 230, a federal statute derided by both Trump and President Joe Biden.



The plaintiffs in Trump’s lawsuit filed a constitutional question in July as to the legality of Section 230. The federal court handling the case in Florida certified the question to Attorney General Merrick Garland and in late August ordered the DOJ to decide whether to intervene to defend the legality of the statute.

In its filing on Nov. 22, the government noted that the Justice Department “has an unconditional right to intervene to defend the statute” and is intervening “for the limited purpose of defending the constitutionality of Section 230.”

The counsel for Facebook and Trump agreed to the DOJ’s intervention, according to the filing (pdf).

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields internet companies from liability for good faith removal of “objectionable” content.

On the campaign trail in 2019, Biden told The New York Times that Section 230 should be repealed.

“The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms,” Biden said in an interview with the Times’ editorial board on Dec. 16, 2019.

“It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false.”

In May this year, Biden revoked a Trump order that had targeted Section 230.


Former President Donald Trump prepares to speak during the Conservative Political Action Conference CPAC held at the Hilton Anatole in Dallas, Texas, on July 11, 2021. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

In his class-action lawsuit against Facebook, Trump is seeking the reinstatement of his account, punitive damages for being banned from the platform, and for Section 230 to be declared unconstitutional.

Facebook banned Trump indefinitely from its platform on Jan. 7, 2021, the day after the riot at the Capitol.

Trump’s attorneys had argued in October that Section 230 violates the First Amendment when applied in his case.

“Coerced by members of the United States Congress, operating under an unconstitutional immunity granted by a permissive federal statute, and acting directly with federal officials, [Facebook] is censoring plaintiff, a former President of the United States,” Trump’s attorneys said in a motion for a preliminary injunction.

“[Facebook] exercises a degree of power and control over political discourse in this country that is immeasurable, historically unprecedented, and profoundly dangerous to open democratic debate. Defendant not only banned Plaintiff from its platform, but also extended its prior restraint to innumerable Users who post comments about Plaintiff.”

Facebook, in prior filings, called the case “meritless.” The company’s counsel attorney had successfully motioned to move the case to a California court, pointing out that users who accept its terms of service agree to litigate their claims in California.

Trump had tens of millions of users on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube before the three social media giants banned his accounts in the wake of the Jan. 6 riot. Trump was subsequently exonerated by the Senate from Capitol-riot-related charges against him brought by House Democrats as part of the second impeachment.

 

[marsh]

Losing Confidence in the Pillars of Our Civilization

pjmedia.com

Losing Confidence in the Pillars of Our Civilization
BY VICTOR DAVIS HANSON NOV 24, 2021 8:47 AM ET

AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File

Millions of citizens long ago concluded that professional sports, academia, and entertainment were no longer disinterested institutions, but far Left and deliberately hostile to Middle America.

Yet American conservatives still adamantly supported the nation’s traditional investigatory, intelligence, and military agencies — especially when they came under budgetary or cultural attacks.

Not so much anymore.

For the first time in memory, conservatives now connect the FBI hierarchy with bureaucratic bloat, political bias, and even illegality.

In the last five years, the FBI was mostly in the news for the checkered careers of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Robert Mueller, Lisa Page, and Peter Strzok. Add in the criminality of convicted FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith.

The colossal FBI-driven “Russian collusion” hoax was marked by the leaking of confidential FBI memos, forged documents, improper surveillance, and serial disinformation.

Prior heads of the CIA and FBI, as well as the director of national intelligence, have at times either not told the truth under oath or claimed amnesia, without legal repercussions.

Mention the military to conservative Americans these days, and they unfortunately associate its leadership with the disastrous flight from Afghanistan. Few, if any, high-ranking officers have yet taken responsibility — much less resigned — for the worst military fiasco of the last half-century.

Instead, President Joe Biden and the top generals traded charges that the other was responsible for the calamity. Or both insisted the abject flight was a logistical masterpiece.

Never in U.S. history have so many retired four-star admirals and generals disparaged their president with charges of being either a traitor, a liar, a fascist, or a virtual Nazi, as occurred during the last administration.

Never has the proper advisory role of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff been so brazenly usurped and contorted.

Never has the secretary of defense promised he would ferret out alleged “white supremacists,” without providing any evidence whatsoever of their supposedly ubiquitous presence and dangerous conspiracies.

Conservatives have always been amused by the liberal biases of the old network news and big-city print media. But they grudgingly admitted that many liberal journalists of the last century were mostly professionals. News divisions mostly reported the news rather than simply made it up.

Not so now with Big Tech and 21stt-century “woke” journalism. Few reporters have yet offered apologies for helping hatch and spread the Russian collusion hoax that paralyzed the country for three years.

Few have admitted culpability for reporting as fact the various fantasies surrounding the Duke Lacrosse team’s prosecution or the Covington Catholic kids deception.

Many in the media ran uncritically with the Jussie Smollett concoction and the “hands-up-don’t shoot” Ferguson distortions. Journalists promulgated misinformation about the “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin encounter, and doctored photos and edited tapes.

They invented the myth of the supposedly brilliant — but now utterly disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo — as well as the “Russian disinformation” yarn that allegedly accounted for the missing Hunter Biden laptop.

Most recently, reporters spread serial untruths surrounding the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.

For much of 2020 to even suggest that the Wuhan Institute of Virology may have played a role in the birth and spread of the COVID-19 earned media derision.

Few reporters suggested that federal health agencies such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases might be disseminating contradictory or even inaccurate information about the pandemic. To believe this was happening instead earned condemnation in the media as if one were some conspiracy theorist or nut.

Rarely have communication industries — veritable utilities in the public domain — so asymmetrically censored speech and applied such one-sided standards of suppressing free expression.

Conservatives used to oppose regulating larger corporations. Now, ironically, most are calling for regulating and breaking up multibillion-dollar social media monopolies and conglomerates that suppress as much as transmit private communications.

The American criminal justice system also used to earn the respect of conservatives.

Prosecuting attorneys, police chiefs, and big-city mayors were seen as custodians of the public order. They were entrusted to keep the peace, to prevent and investigate crime, and to arrest and prosecute criminals.

Again, not so much now.

After 120 days of mostly unchecked riot, arson, looting, and violent protests during the summer of 2020, the public lost confidence in their public safety agencies.

District attorneys in several major cities — Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and St. Louis — have often predicated prosecuting crimes on the basis of ideology, race, and careerism.

In the current crime wave, brazen lawbreakers enjoy de facto immunity. Mass looting goes unpunished. Indictments are often aimed as much against those who defend themselves as against criminals who attack the innocent.

Conservatives now have lost their former traditional confidence in the administration of justice, in the intelligence and investigatory agencies, in the nation’s military leadership, in the media, and the criminal justice system.

No one yet knows what the effect will be of half the country losing faith in the very pillars of American civilization.

 

[marsh]

Alan Dershowitz's stark warning: Justice system becoming infected by critical race theory

"Trials and justice have ceased to be about individual justice," famed law professor says. "They're about identity politics."

justthenews.com

Alan Dershowitz's stark warning: Justice system becoming infected by critical race theory
"Trials and justice have ceased to be about individual justice," famed law professor says. "They're about identity politics."

Updated: November 25, 2021 - 12:22am

Alan Dershowitz, the famed law scholar and appellate lawyer, has a stark warning for judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers: America's justice system is being corrupted by identity politics and critical race theory.

In an interview with Just the News, Dershowitz deplored the growing trend in recent criminal cases toward political agendas supplanting the neutral consideration of evidence and law that has been the lifeblood of U.S. jurisprudence for more than two centuries.

"It's becoming much more responsive, unfortunately, to critical race theory, basically, everything's about race," Dershowitz told the John Solomon Reports podcast in an interview aired this week. "Everything's about race or politics.

"The justice system has stopped being about is this particular person innocent or guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence and based on the law. People today are rooting, cheering for verdicts. They want verdicts to reflect their narrative. They want verdicts to prove their way of looking at the world. Trials and justice have ceased to be about individual justice. They're about identity politics."

John Solomon Reports 33:56 min

Dershowitz said the aftermath of the George Floyd tragedy in Minneapolis created a tipping point where racial activists and woke ideologues have forced discussions ranging from education to business to be centered solely on race.

"I'm 83 years old, and I will never live to see or return to the days when we follow Martin Luther King's quest dream," Dershowitz lamented. "He dreamt of the time when his children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the quality of their character. That's not going to happen.

"The killings in the past couple of years, particularly the George Floyd, changed the concept of race in America. Everything now is about about race. And we can't get around it."

Beyond the judicial system, Dershowitz said he is troubled that race ideology is also predetermining decisions like hiring such that "the qualification for jobs has more to do with your attitudes toward race and identity politics than toward the issue on the merits."

"Recently, a school in California posted a job for a theoretical physicist, and hardly mentioned anything about physics," he recounted. "But it talked about where do you stand on diversity?

Where do you stand on everything relating to race?

"If Albert Einstein had applied to the job, he wouldn't have gotten it, because he probably wouldn't have answered the question. He was a liberal leftist, personally. But he was also an anti-McCarthyite. So he probably wouldn't have answered the questions, and he would have been fired or not hired."

Dershowitz is one of the legal world's most respected voices, spending decades as a Harvard University law professor and litigating some of the most important appellate issues in the last half century. But he said his unwillingness to bend from his principles and embrace identity politics in law or alter his support for Israel has caused him to be ostracized in circles where he once was hailed.

He cited an example of a Jewish synagogue that invited him for a decade to speak each year, only now to ban him.

"You can't make up your own mind about any issue," he lamented. "If you're going to be a woke person on the left, you have to be 100% on board on every issue. You have to be anti-Israel. You have to be basically anti-white. And you have to be completely on board with all the woke stuff, some good, some very bad, and some intolerable."

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

We Don't Get A Vote On The Woke Revolution

WEDNESDAY, NOV 24, 2021 - 08:30 PM
Authored by J.Peder Zane via RealClearPolitics.com,

You don’t get to vote on the revolution. That’s kind of the point. From the happy example of Colonial America to the terrors that mutilated and murdered innocents in France, Russia, and China, revolutionaries work outside the established system to impose a new order.


So it is with today’s woke revolution. The potent cultural forces that have mainstreamed radical concepts such as “white privilege,” “microaggressions,” and “gender fluidity” are beyond the reach of American democracy.

No one voted for any of it; it cannot be stopped at the ballot box. Electing anti-woke politicians in 2022 and 2024 will not turn the tide.

The embrace of woke ideology by many prestigious news outlets – as symbolized by the New York Times’ 1619 Project, which recasts American society through the cramped lens of racism and oppression – is not subject to popular approval. Neither is the American Medical Association’s move to view health disparities between blacks and other Americans as the result of “systemic racism” (rather than biology, personal behavior, or cultural influences).

We don’t get to vote on the decision by the National Institutes of Health, the nation’s largest funder of biomedical research, to commit $90 million in funding along with “every tool at our disposal to remediate the chronic problem of structural racism.” The same goes for the diktat in corporate America to mandate race and gender into their hiring decisions, or the woke-saturated culture that predominates at most American colleges and universities, where faculty applicants are asked to sign loyalty oaths to diversity and equity.

Parental opposition to the influence of critical race theory in public schools shows that pushback is possible. School board meetings are one of the few public venues where ordinary Americans can voice their discontent to this ideology, which casts white kindergarteners as oppressors and non-white tots as victims. But these critics are labeled “domestic terrorists” for their efforts — and it’s still not clear what, if any, impact the parents will have on what and how children are taught.

In fairness, broad swaths of the culture always operate and evolve outside of politics. The world of ideas and entertainment – the books we read, movies we watch, groups we join – must never be subject to electoral will. But the woke revolution feels different. First, it is an explicitly political ideology that is, at bottom, about power. Second, it is remarkably ambitious: It seeks a wholesale transformation of America’s past, present and future. Third, while some of its ideas resonate with plenty of people, it is a top-down movement that seeks to impose alien ways of thinking and being on everyone – hence the rise of cancel culture and other illiberal mechanisms to silence and punish those who fail to conform.

One of the great paradoxes of the social justice movement is that even as it claims to fight inequality, it is itself a reflection of the growing inequality in America: both of wealth and culture. Like most revolutions, it is not led by the downtrodden but by the elites. It is not the person of color on the streets but the swells at the top (most of them white) who are imposing the new order.

Although it might seem that the woke revolution erupted in 2020 with George Floyd’s murder, or with the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement following Michael Brown’s shooting in Ferguson, Mo., in 2014, its intellectual framework – which includes critical race theory, postmodernism, anti-colonialism, black power and queer/gender studies – emerged at America’s universities in the 1960s and 1970s. Heavily influenced by Marxism, leftist scholars suffered a crisis of confidence after communism was discredited 30 years ago as the Soviet Union collapsed. In response, activist academics essentially repackaged their old ideas. They still saw politics as a zero-sum battle between oppressors and the oppressed, with themselves in the moral vanguard, but they replaced the concept of class with new identity markers: racial and sexual identity. The struggle was no longer between capitalists and the proletariat, but privileged “cisgendered heteronormative” whites versus the rest of humanity.

There was always a kernel of truth to this narrative – America, like every other nation, has unequal distributions of wealth and power (hierarchy is inevitable; even the communists, who pledged to create true equality, simply replaced the tsar’s hierarchy with their own, one dominated by party leaders and apparatchiks). But the expansion of rights and opportunities we’ve achieved over the last half-century – the fact that legions of people defined as “oppressed” enjoy status, respect, wealth and power only dreamed of in most corners of the globe – exposes the absurdity of the claim that race and gender determine one’s fate.

Nevertheless, this narrative increasingly informs the education delivered at Western colleges and universities, especially at elite schools. The graduates of these institutions, in turn, become the professors, journalists, managers, administrators and other moral enforcers using their positions to advance the woke revolution from within.

The key question – why would seemingly intelligent people commit to an ideology so at odds with reality? – requires a complex set of answers. The collapse of traditional social norms, the offshoring of the blue-collar sector, the baneful influence of social media, the realignment of legacy media into tribal factions, the creation of overeducated citizens saddled with crippling debt, rapidly rising living standards that create rising expectations — all this and more play a part. Radicalism is opportunistic, lying dormant for decades until the right combination of conditions presents itself.

But a pivotal, if underappreciated, force is the rise of the information-based global economy, which has doubled the number of millionaires in the United States in just a decade, opening a chasm of envy between the haves and the super-haves. Statista reports that there were close to 6 million U.S. households with financial assets worth more than $1 million in 2019; more than double the number in 2008. At the same time, Pew reports that “as of 2016, the latest year for which data are available, the typical American family had a net worth of $101,800.”

This growing inequality is not based on the false claim that the wealthy are benefiting at the expense of non-rich – they are, more accurately, getting a bigger slice of a growing pie in a world where living standards continue to rise. But this increase does make it easier for radicals to exploit the false argument, insistently advanced by prestigious news and information outlets, that the current system is unjust and that, given America’s history, today’s disparities stem from race.

To buy peace, and peace of mind, many well-off Americans – especially the well-educated ones who now call the Democrat Party home – are happy to acquiesce to ideas that, as a practical matter, will have little immediate impact on their own comfortable lives: agreeing that the American Revolution was fought over slavery, that social justice requires reparations, that gender identities are malleable, that reality is socially constructed, that “silence is violence.” It costs them nothing to spout these slogans, which allow them to feel morally superior.

In the long run, I hope, truth will out. But those who oppose the revolution should know they are battling powerful and entrenched forces that are, in significant ways, beyond their reach.

 

[marsh]

The Atlantic Calls to Use Thanksgiving to ‘Deprogram’ or ‘Report’ Conservative Relatives

The Atlantic called on readers to utilize family Thanksgiving get-togethers to “deprogram” and sow doubt in conservative relatives.

www.breitbart.com

The Atlantic Calls to Use Thanksgiving to ‘Deprogram’ or ‘Report’ Conservative Relatives

Getty Images
JOSHUA KLEIN25 Nov 20211,026

The Atlantic published an essay on the eve of Thanksgiving, calling on readers to utilize family Thanksgiving get-togethers to “deprogram” and sow doubt in conservative relatives, suggesting that one may even succeed in changing their mind or perhaps “need to report [them] to the FBI!”

In an essay penned by Daily Beast contributing editor Molly Jong-Fast titled “Deprogram your relatives this Thanksgiving,” the left-wing pundit called the national celebration “terrible” and “no one’s idea of a great time,” though insisted using the time to “deprogram” relatives could make it worthwhile.

“Thanksgiving is terrible, and if you at least spend the time trying to deprogram your niece, you won’t be bored or depressed,” she wrote. “[T]hough you might be enraged that Fox News or Infowars has convinced her Trump can ‘save America’ from Joe Biden’s radical agenda of giving people hearing aids and free pre-K.”

Calling the notion that Thanksgiving is a “time for harmony and niceties and gratitude” a “completely wrong” one, Jong-Fast slammed those who “think that you should spend your Thanksgiving playing nice.”

She specifically targeted those “pretending that your cousin doesn’t follow QAnon and that your uncle doesn’t believe the election was stolen and also that the Cyber Ninjas are a bunch of cucks for not uncovering voter fraud.”

“Spending a holiday sitting around, pretending your crazy relatives aren’t crazy, is one of America’s time-honored traditions,” she claimed, though adding “we are not in normal times.”

Noting that, in contrast with last Thanksgiving, Americans can finally gather “more safely” with family — including “weird cousins and uncles” — Jong-Fast called upon readers to utilize the opportunity to “deprogram” them.

“This is your chance to deprogram them,” she wrote.

“This is your chance to tell your aunt that maybe the news she gets from it isn’t all that reliable,” she added. “And that maybe the MAGA news network is not giving her unbiased news, either.”

She also highlighted vaccination against the coronavirus as a particular issue to confront relatives about.

“Especially when it comes to vaccines, family members can actually win each other’s hearts and minds,” she wrote, adding, “You could literally save your creepy uncle’s life.”

Concerning other issues, she claimed, “there’s a decent chance someone at your Thanksgiving table will be QAnon-curious or believe the Big Lie.”

“Should you let this person rant and rave about how there were voting ‘irregularities’ even though there weren’t irregularities?” she asked.

She also argued that such relatives may be ignorant of the truth due to their news sources.

“If they’re keeping up with current events through Facebook and Fox News, they’re in such an information silo that they might never hear the truth of what really happened during the 2020 election,” she wrote.

Jong-Fast added that, “For the record: Nothing happened.”

She then suggested that such confrontations may be the only hope that such relatives have of being gotten through to.

“You might be the only person your uncle talks to all year who could explain to him that the Cyber Ninjas themselves found zero evidence of voter fraud,” she wrote. “You might be the only person in the world who can sit down with your anti-vax cousin and explain to her that the vaccine won’t make her infertile and that Alex Berenson is a fraud.”

She concluded by suggesting that such attempts at “deprogramming” could potentially change others’ minds, though the need “to report a relative to the FBI” was also an option.

“[M]aybe you’ll plant the seed, sow just a little doubt about whatever Tucker Carlson is saying now. Maybe you’ll even change a heart or a mind,” she said. “Maybe you’ll bring the temperature down just a tiny bit. Or maybe you’ll need to report a relative to the FBI!”

“Either way, it’s something to do besides just eat,” she added.

In response, many took to social media to ridicule the essay.

“You’re totally normal and not deranged,” mocked Iranian-American columnist Sohrab Ahmari.

“Don’t let anyone convince you otherwise!”

“Daily Beast editor and aspiring Cheka commissioner Molly Jong Fast asks you to report your relatives to the FBI this Thanksgiving,” wrote Christina Pushaw, press secretary for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

“Historians of the future will specialize in understanding how an entire generation of American elites went insane,” wrote bestselling author and senatorial candidate JD Vance.

“For those who know a little bit of history, this was the mindset in Italy and Germany during early 1930s,” wrote one Twitter user. “De-programming, Reporting what a nonsense.”

“That’s the way to bring your family together, report them to the FBI,” quipped another user.

“Or just enjoy your family in spite of their differences and not be a smug, self-righteous asshole for one day,” another wrote.

This is not the first time that “deprogramming” those on the right has been encouraged by those on the left.

In February, former FBI Assistant Director Frank Figliuzzi called for a large-scale “de-radicalization approach” to “Trump’s political cult members,” while highlighting the need to “deprogram” those who believe that Joe Biden did not win the recent presidential election.

That same month, the New York Times published an essay detailing a range of recommendations for the Biden administration to adopt to fix the “reality crisis” and “de-radicalize” citizens, including setting up a “reality czar” and “truth commission.”

In a video promoted by the left from earlier this year, citizens were called upon to become cyber detectives to monitor and report “radical” fellow citizen conservatives to authorities.

In January, Vanity Fair published an interview with cult expert Steven Hassan detailing how to go about “deprogramming” Trump supporters, while arguing for a “massive education” effort involving the participation of schools, mental health professionals, law enforcement, media, politicians, and intelligence agencies.

He also stated that “all of America needs deprogramming” due to the negative influence of President Trump.

 

[marsh]

Leaked HHS Memo Shows Biden Gang Plans to Disregard Religious Freedom Rights | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

The Biden gang is now working on destroying religious freedom. This goes along with its terrible record on life and support for individual rights. Christian CBN News reports: A leaked memo from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reveals plans by the Biden administration to make...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Leaked HHS Memo Shows Biden Gang Plans to Disregard Religious Freedom Rights

By Joe Hoft
Published November 25, 2021 at 12:00pm

The Biden gang is now working on destroying religious freedom. This goes along with its terrible record on life and support for individual rights.

Christian CBN News reports:

A leaked memo from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reveals plans by the Biden administration to make changes to Americans’ First Amendment rights and other religious liberty protections.

The internal memo describes plans to “sign delegation of authority on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and religion clause of the First Amendment” to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

The article continues:

The memo—penned by Lisa J. Pino, director of the OCR—does not deny there will be pushback if enacted.

“The action will likely be well-received among civil rights advocates and litigators, as well as groups advocating for the separation of church and state,” the memo reads.

“Groups who share the prior Administration’s broad view of the application of RFRA or who will interpret this action as an indication that the Department is abdicating its responsibility for compliance with RFRA will likely issue strong negative reactions,” it continues. “This includes members of Congress who have been outspoken about OCR’s conscience and religious freedom activities and who have repeatedly asked questions about changes to OCR’s organizational structure and legal authorities.”

The memo recommends HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra sign the action as soon a possible.

It’s likely Becerra will do that. His prior record shows he has no concerns for individual rights.

HHS Secretary Becerra: "It's Absolutely the Government's Business" to Know Which Americans Are Not Vaccinated (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) Xavier Becerra on Thursday said it’s “absolutely the government’s business” to know which Americans are not vaccinated.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Biden and his gang pretend that individual rights simply don’t exist.

 

[marsh]

DC Public Schools Sent Email To Families Telling Them To ‘Decolonize' Their Thanksgiving | The Gateway Pundit | by Cassandra MacDonald

District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) sent an email to families of students telling them to “decolonize” their Thanksgiving.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

DC Public Schools Sent Email To Families Telling Them To ‘Decolonize’ Their Thanksgiving

By Cassandra Fairbanks
Published November 25, 2021 at 6:42pm

District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) sent an email to families of students telling them to “decolonize” their Thanksgiving.

The email, sent by Chancellor Lewis D. Ferebee, added that Thanksgiving can be “difficult for many.”

“Thanksgiving is a day that can be difficult for many to celebrate as we reflect on the history of the holiday and the horrors inflicted on our indigenous populations. If you celebrate, our Equity team has shared resources for how you can consider decolonizing your Thanksgiving,” the email, which is also posted to their website, said.

The email suggested that “if you host a Thanksgiving meal, consider doing a land acknowledgement.”

They also suggested articles and books, including some for children, on how to “decolonize” your dinner.

Of course, the email also pushed vaccine booster shots.

“During your holiday celebration, I encourage you and your families to stay safe and follow the Stronger & Safer Together Pledge. All eligible members of our community are also encouraged to receive their COVID-19 booster shot,” the email continued. “Find your vaccine card or access your vaccine record by visiting myir.dc.gov, call your healthcare provider to discuss your options for a booster, or visit vaccines.gov to find a location near you. Together, we can help keep our community safe by getting vaccinated, limiting our travel, and avoiding high risk environments.”

^^^^^^^^^^^^6

[COMMENT: This always triggers me as I think about my more than 20 ancestors killed or taken prisoner by native Americans in events like the 1692 Candlemas Massacre in York, Maine, the raids on the settlements along the Piscataqua River, the massacre of 1695 in Andover, Mass, or the raids of Chief Joseph Brant against the New York and New Jersey settlements along the Delaware River.

The Indigenous people weren't the only people with "horrors inflicted" upon them in the early meeting of cultures and there are many documents stating the land had been purchased from local tribes or abandoned due to sickness that swept through.]

 

[marsh]

California Sued Over Law Forcing Appointment of Minorities and LGBT to Corporate Boards

www.theepochtimes.com

Then California State Assemblymember Shirley Weber (D-San Diego) speaks during a news conference in Sacramento, Calif., on April 3, 2018. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
JUDICIARY
California Sued Over Law Forcing Appointment of Minorities and LGBT to Corporate Boards

By Matthew Vadum
November 25, 2021 Updated: November 25, 2021

A conservative think tank filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against California to halt a law that will force quotas on publicly held corporations headquartered in the state, requiring them to appoint board members based solely on their race and sexual orientation.

The legislation at issue is the fruit of last year’s race riots that caused more than $2 billion in property damage and were organized nationwide by Black Lives Matter and Antifa.

The lawsuit, National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) v. Weber, was filed on Nov. 22 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Defendant Shirley Weber, a radical left-wing academic before entering politics, is being sued in her official capacity as California secretary of state. Until January of this year, the San Diego-area Democrat was a member of the California State Assembly, where she championed AB 3121, a law creating a task force to develop proposals to pay reparations to blacks to compensate them for having ancestors a century and a half ago who were enslaved.

California has an “ugly past,” and its “systemic injustice” needs to be confronted, she said when her bill became law last year.

The NCPPR is a pro-free market research and shareholder advocacy organization. It’s being represented in the legal proceeding by Sacramento-based Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), which argues that the new law, known as AB 979, perpetuates discrimination by treating people based on their immutable characteristics, and not as individuals.

Since 2020, the state law known as SB 826 has required that all publicly held corporations headquartered in California meet a quota of female board members or face fines. PLF client and shareholder activist Creighton Meland is challenging SB 826 in the same U.S. district court. The state tried to have the case dismissed but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously determined that a shareholder of a California company has standing to sue over the law.

Beginning next year, AB 979 will require the affected corporations to meet an additional quota for board members based on race and sexual orientation.

When signing AB 979 into law on Sept. 30, 2020, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said he did so to advance “racial justice.”

“When we talk about racial justice, we talk about empowerment, we talk about power, we need to talk about seats at the table,” Newsom said, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The NCPPR disagrees about using government coercion to enforce diversity.

The problem is “these diversity quotas apply to all businesses across every industry in perpetuity, regardless of whether there is any specific evidence of discrimination,” the organization states in its legal complaint.

“These laws, which dole out benefits and impose burdens on the basis of race, sex, and sexual orientation, are unconstitutional.”

PLF attorney Daniel Ortner said that by the end of the current year, all publicly traded corporations headquartered in California will be required “to have one racial minority or LGBT individual on their board.”

“What’s happening is the state of California has decided that they can intervene and force private companies to impose race quotas and sex quotas and all kinds of quotas,” he told The Epoch Times in an interview.

But the Supreme Court regards quotas as “invidious because all they care about is one’s membership in a class—they’re not treating you an individual anymore … and that is deeply, deeply, deeply contrary to the Constitution and to the ideals of equality under the law that the Constitution stands for.”

Under AB 979, any “publicly held domestic or foreign corporation whose principal executive offices … are located in California” must have “a minimum of one director from an underrepresented community on its board” by Dec. 31, the petition states.

By Dec. 31, 2022, a corporation must have a number of directors with given characteristics, depending on the board’s size. If a corporation has five to eight directors, at least two will have to be members of an underrepresented community. A corporation with nine or more directors will have to have at least 3 members from an underrepresented community.

A “director from an underrepresented community” is defined as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

The National Association of Scholars (NAS) welcomed the new lawsuit.

“It’s a shame that this horrible law ever passed California’s legislature,” said NAS communications director Chance Layton.

“Laws like these often begin with good intentions, but quickly get out of hand. If this law is left to stand, we might as well throw in the towel on the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” Layton told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement.

“Race or sex discrimination should never be practiced by an American government. California’s legislature … have already shown their desire to discriminate and act with prejudice last year in the fight over Proposition 16. That ballot measure was defeated, thankfully, because regardless of what those in power believe, the people understand that allowing the state to discriminate based on unchangeable attributes of individuals is fundamentally wrong.”

When she was an Assemblymember last year, Weber introduced the legislation that would become Proposition 16, which would have repealed the state constitution’s ban on race-based and sex-based affirmative action, according to Ballotpedia.

Weber’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

 

[marsh]

Shock: Texas Teaching Course Teaches “White Supremacy is Everywhere” - Big League Politics

A course for teachers in Texas is indoctrinating teachers with critical race theory.

bigleaguepolitics.com

Shock: Texas Teaching Course Teaches “White Supremacy is Everywhere”

Seth Segal |
Nov 25, 2021

A course for teachers in Texas is indoctrinating teachers with critical race theory.

According to a Fox report, teachers in a Texas public school are learning the central tenets of CRT. Fort Worth Independent School District is teaching that “White Supremacy is everywhere.”

According to The Daily Caller “The school district has asserted that it does not teach CRT, but it advertised a class for teachers and staff that introduced CRT into the curriculum”. “Counter- storytelling, the permanence of racism, whiteness as property, interest convergence, critique of liberalism.” In addition participants in this course learn that racism “is prevalent in all aspects of our society.”

They are also learning that “America is oppressive” according to Carlos Turcios who organizes protests. (Fox News) “Last I checked critical race theory doesn’t help kids learn how to pay the bills, pay their taxes or pass that job interview.”

Sadly, instead of focusing on reading and math the school systems are focusing on equity and diversity. These are divisive subjects that divide not unite Americans. This school district is teaching students to be social justice warriors. This is indoctrination not education. CRT teaches students to view everything in a racial angle. This is the definition of racism.

Some states such as New Jersey- as previously reported by BLP-have taken action against CRT. It would be in the national interest to ban this hateful ideology from being taught at school. It remains an open question whether Abbott will follow suite. Some politicians have called for just this.

 

[marsh]

Let's Not Confuse the Left's 'Equity' With Equality or Justice, America

redstate.com

Let's Not Confuse the Left's 'Equity' With Equality or Justice, America

By Mike Miller | Nov 25, 2021 11:30 PM ET

AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

When Joe Biden took possession of the Oval Office in January, his first executive order — of many to come — announced a “whole-of-government equity agenda.” Forget that old-school “All men are created equal” stuff — we’re talking about “equity” replacing equality. “Societal “leveling, as it were.

And in a 2020 presidential campaign ad, then-vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris lectured America on “the difference between equality and equity.” Equity, Harris argued, cannot coexist with equality, freedom, and justice, since those principles dear to America stand in the way of societal leveling.

Equality suggests, “oh everyone should get the same amount.”

The problem with that, not everybody’s starting out from the same place. So if we’re all getting the same amount, but you started out back there and I started out over here, we could get the same amount, but you’re still going to be that far back behind me.

It’s about giving people the resources and the support they need, so that everyone can be on equal footing, and then compete on equal footing. Equitable treatment means we all end up in the same place.

Complete illogical “logic,” on multiple levels — but a tenet of the far-left just the same.

View: https://youtu.be/w4kowE_YIVw
.50 min

Mensa-quality, ain’t she? Deep, too.

The “logic” on display by Harris doesn’t only apply to material wealth or status in life. Applied to the criminal justice system, leftist equity means verdicts should be meted out not according to the guilt or innocence of the defendant but according to the government or society’s view of what will produce a properly reordered society.

George Neumayr, a senior editor at The American Spectator, illustrated leftist equity and the rule of law after Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted on all charges last week. Specifically, Harris’s response to it.

After the jurors delivered their verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, Kamala Harris ominously said:

“I’ve spent a majority of my career working to make our criminal justice system more equitable. It’s clear, there’s still a lot more work to do.”

In other words, Rittenhouse should have been subject to a trial not by law but by mob politics. Joe Biden, of course, agrees. He let it be known that he supports those who feel “angry” about the verdict.

The facts in the Rittenhouse case clearly didn’t matter to the left. Hell, Biden had Kyle charged, tried, and convicted, labeling the 18-year-old a “white supremacist” before he knew a single fact — if he does, now. Facts don’t matter to the left, nor does its view of “equity” have a damn thing to do with justice.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1461765013635534855

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1461765013635534855
.27 min

“’Equity’ means treating defendants not as individuals,” wrote Neumayr, “but as bearers of historical sin or beneficiaries of historical wrongs.” Make no mistake: The left wanted nothing to do with justice for Rittenhouse and everything to do with revenge for two dead white thugs who threatened his life.

Neumayr put it this way:

“Equity” is simply a euphemism for an endless and ubiquitous project of race-based social engineering that justifies new injustices in the name of eliminating old ones. […]

The goal of Kamala Harris is not to make the criminal justice system more equitable but more ideologically partial. Hence, she can blithely disregard the facts pointing to Rittenhouse’s innocence, while supporting the release of Black Lives Matter rioters from jail.

From Biden on down (or up, depending on one’s POV), we’re now told that the right of self-defense — by white people — is a product of “white supremacy.”

“This is critical race theory at its most demented,” Neumayr correctly observed. “If the left gets its way, trial by ‘equity’ politics will become the norm.”

Austrian Economist F.A. Hayek observed: “There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal.” Today’s left has even blown past that goal. “Equity” in the demented mindset of the left means denying equality to “white people” so, as Kamala Harris suggested, Black people can “catch up” — with the Democrat Party there to help them, every step of the way.

Finally, as Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw observed, “The government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and the entire Democrat Party, seen furiously nodding in approval.

 

[marsh]

Armed Agents in Texas School District Arrest Parents in Their Own Homes

A Texas school district is using its own armed agents to arrest parents who speak out against the school board's policies.

www.breitbart.com

Armed Agents in Texas School District Arrest Concerned Parents in Their Own Homes
192

Jeremy Story/Facebook
BRECCAN F. THIES26 Nov 20212,664

The Round Rock Independent School District (RRISD) in Texas is using its own armed agents to arrest parents who speak out against the school board’s policies, according to Christopher Rufo in the City Journal.

Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, said:

The battle lines are clear: on one side, the Biden administration, public school bureaucrats, and their armed agents; on the other, parents and families who oppose school closures, mask mandates, critical race theory and corruption. Public school officials have demonstrated a willingness to use police power to silence and intimidate their opponents.

Two fathers, Jeremy Story and Dustin Clark, had spoken out against the school board’s “alleged corruption and school officials’ hostility toward parents.” In August, while “produc[ing] evidence that the board had covered up an alleged assault by the superintendent, Hafedh Azaiez, against a mistress,” Story, a minister, was cut off midsentence as Azaiez ordered armed officers to remove him from the premises, according to Chronicles Magazine.


Jeremy Story forcibly removed from RRISD school board meeting by police. (Jeremy Story / Facebook)

At issue in the next meeting was the district’s mask mandate. For this, Clark, a retired Army captain, and other parents sought to speak, but instead, the school board “locked the majority of parents out of the room, preventing them from speaking.” According to Rufo, while the parents were asking the school board to open the room for public comment on a major policy item, “school board president Amy Weir directed officers to remove Clark from school property.”

“As he was dragged out by two officers, Clark shouted to the audience: ‘It’s an open meeting! Shame on you. Communist! Communist! Let the public in!'” Rufo explained.

RRISD has it’s own police force, Rufo said, explaining: “with a three-layer chain of command, patrol units, school resource officers, a detective, and a K-9 unit.” And only a few days after Clark’s removal from school board premises, the school district “sent police officers to the homes of both men [Story and Clark], arrested them, and put them in jail on charges of ‘disorderly conduct with intent to disrupt a meeting.'” They were released the next morning.


Jeremy Story forcibly removed from RRISD school board meeting by police. (Jeremy Story / Facebook)

According to Rufo, many parents believe the school board is trying to send a message: “if you speak out against us, we will turn you into criminals.”
But these tactics are not unique to RRISD, explained Rufo:

In Loudoun County, Virginia, for example, where parents have protested against critical race theory and a sexual assault cover-up, the superintendent asked the county sheriff to deploy a SWAT team, riot control unit, and undercover agents to monitor parents at school board meetings.

The Loudoun sheriff did not comply with the superintendent’s request, saying the board had not given “any justification for such a manpower-intensive request.”

The issue of police power intimidation has become federal as well, as Breitbart News reported Attorney General Merrick Garland directed the FBI to look into concerned parents. Breitbart News also reported on a whistleblower revelation that the FBI went as far as to use “counterterrorism tools” to go after parents.

Story and Clark believe what they have gone through has implications beyond RRISD, with Story saying, “This isn’t just about Dustin [Clark] and me. It is about everyone. If they can come for us and get away with it, school boards nationwide will be emboldened to come for you.”

View: https://youtu.be/oRNzbQZTYVM
1:46 min

 

[marsh]

CRT Whistleblower Banned From School Because Staff Have "Clinical Anxiety" Over Working With Him | The Gateway Pundit | by ProTrumpNews Staff

Tony Kinnett, A public school administrator in Indiana, exposed that critical race theory is being taught in public schools.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

CRT Whistleblower Banned From School Because Staff Have “Clinical Anxiety” Over Working With Him

By ProTrumpNews Staff
Published November 27, 2021 at 10:20am

Tony Kinnett, A public school administrator in Indiana, exposed that critical race theory is being taught in public schools.

According to Kinnett, what is being taught “suggests to all of our students who aren’t black or brown that they are responsible for centuries of horrible oppression that the United States has built.”

He added, “we do have critical race theory in how we teach.”

Now, he’s being punished.

Fox News reported:

A public school administrator in Indiana went viral after posting a video explaining that Indiana schools are teaching Critical Race Theory and intentionally deceiving concerned parents about whether or not their children are being subjected to it.

“When we tell you that our schools aren’t teaching Critical Race Theory, that it’s nowhere in our standards, that’s misdirection,” Indianapolis district science coordinator, instructional coach, and administrator Tony Kinnett posted on Twitter Thursday.

Kinnett explained that he is an administrator in the largest school district in Indiana which means he is present in “dozens of classrooms a week” so he “sees exactly what we are teaching our students.”

“We don’t have the quotes and theories as state standards per se,” Kinnett said. “We do have Critical Race Theory in how we teach.”

Kinnett continued, “We tell our teachers to treat our students differently based on color. We tell our students every problem is a result of ‘white men’ and that everything Western Civilization built is racist. Capitalism is a tool of white supremacy.

Those are straight out of Kimberle Crenshaw’s main points verbatim in ‘Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement.’”

For exposing this he has been placed on leave and denied access to the school email and all buildings.

Epoch Times reported:

Tony Kinnett, an Indianapolis-based educator who went viral on social media for exposing how critical race theory (CRT) is being implemented at his school district, says he has now been placed on leave and denied access to school email and buildings.

In a Twitter thread, the award-winning science coach revealed that he has been locked out of his school email and Google Drive by Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS), Indiana’s largest school district serving about 23,000 students.

According to Kinnett, the IPS required him to “work from home the last two weeks,” because staff reportedly have “clinical anxiety” over working with him to the point that phone calls had to be made to each team member before he entered the office so they could avoid seeing him. Finally, Kinnett said he has been “banned from going to any IPS school building or hosting any professional developments.”

Payback for telling the truth!

 

[marsh]

The Cynical and Dangerous Weaponization of the "White Supremacist" Label

In dominant elite discourse, no evidence is needed to brand someone a "white supremacist." The belief that it will produce political or personal gain suffices.

greenwald.substack.com

The Cynical and Dangerous Weaponization of the "White Supremacist" Label

In dominant elite discourse, no evidence is needed to brand someone a "white supremacist." The belief that it will produce political or personal gain suffices.

Glenn Greenwald 10 hr ago 413 376

A protester with a sign is seen outside of the Hall of Justice during the Reject the Verdict rally on November 20, 2021 in Louisville, Kentucky. Demonstrators from Black Lives Matter Louisville and Louisville 'Showing Up for Racial Justice' held the rally to refute the recent acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse, who claimed self defense after killing two protesters and injuring another on August 25, 2020 in Kenosha, Wisconsin. (Photo by Jon Cherry/Getty Images)

Within hours of the August 25, 2020, shootings in Kenosha, Wisconsin — not days, but hours — it was decreed as unquestioned fact in mainstream political and media circles that the shooter, Kyle Rittenhouse, was a "white supremacist.” Over the next fifteen months, up to and including his acquittal by a jury of his peers on all charges, this label was applied to him more times than one can count by corporate media outlets as though it were proven fact. Indeed, that Rittenhouse was a "white supremacist” was deemed so unquestionably true that questioning it was cast as evidence of one's own racist inclinations (defending a white supremacist).

Yet all along, there was never any substantial evidence, let alone convincing proof, that it was true. This fact is, or at least should be, an extraordinary, even scandalous, event: a 17-year-old was widely vilified as being a white supremacist by a union of national media and major politicians despite there being no evidence to support the accusation. Yet it took his acquittal by a jury who heard all the evidence and testimony for parts of the corporate press to finally summon the courage to point out that what had been Gospel about Rittenhouse for the last fifteen months was, in fact, utterly baseless.

A Washington Post news article was published late last week that was designed to chide "both sides” for exploiting the Rittenhouse case for their own purposes while failing to adhere carefully to actual facts. Ever since the shootings in Kenosha, they lamented, "Kyle Rittenhouse has been a human canvas onto which the nation’s political divisions were mapped.” In attempting to set the record straight, the Post article contained this amazing admission:

As conservatives coalesced around the idea of Rittenhouse as a blameless defender of law and order, many on the left just as quickly cast him as the embodiment of the far-right threat. Despite a lack of evidence, hundreds of social media posts immediately pinned Rittenhouse with extremist labels: white supremacist, self-styled militia member, a “boogaloo boy” seeking violent revolution, or part of the misogynistic “incel” movement.

“On the left he’s become a symbol of white supremacy that isn’t being held accountable in the United States today,” said Becca Lewis, a researcher of far-right movements and a doctoral candidate at Stanford University. “You see him getting conflated with a lot of the police officers who’ve shot unarmed Black men and with Trump himself and all these other things. On both sides, he’s become a symbol much bigger than himself.”

Soon after the shootings, then-candidate Joe Biden told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that Rittenhouse was allegedly part of a militia group in Illinois. In the next sentence, Biden segued to criticism of Trump and hate groups: “Have you ever heard this president say one negative thing about white supremacists?

Valuable though this rather belated admission is, there were two grand ironies about this passage. The first is that The Post itself was one of the newspapers which published multiple articles and columns applying this evidence-free "white supremacist" label to Rittenhouse.

Indeed, four days after this admission by The Post's newsroom, their opinion editors published an op-ed by Robert Jones that flatly asserted the very same accusation which The Post itself says is bereft of evidence: “Despite his boyish white frat boy appearance, there was plenty of evidence of Rittenhouse’s deeper white supremacist orientation.” In other words, Post editors approved publication of grave accusations which, just four days earlier, their own newsroom explicitly stated lacked evidence.

The second irony is that while the Post article lamented everyone else's carelessness with the facts of this case, the publication itself — while purporting to fact-check the rest of the world — affirmed one of the most common falsehoods: namely, that Rittenhouse carried a gun across state lines. The article thus now carries this correction at the top: “An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Kyle Rittenhouse brought his AR-15 across state lines. He has testified that he picked up the weapon from a friend’s house in Wisconsin. This article has been corrected.”



It continues to be staggering how media outlets which purport to explain the Rittenhouse case get caught over and over spreading utter falsehoods about the most basic facts of the case, proving they did not watch the trial or learn much about what happened beyond what they heard in passing from like-minded liberals on Twitter. There is simply no way to have paid close attention to this case, let alone have watched the trial, and believe that he carried a gun across state lines, yet this false assertion made it past numerous Post reporters, editors and fact-checkers purporting to "correct the record” about this case. Yet again, we find that the same news outlets which love to accuse others of “disinformation” — and want the internet censored in the name of stopping it — frequently pontificate on topics about which they know nothing, without the slightest concern for whether or not it is true.

Those who continue to condemn Rittenhouse as a white supremacist — including the author of The Post op-ed published four days after the paper concluded the accusation was baseless — typically point to his appearance at a bar in January, 2021, for a photo alongside members of the Proud Boys in which he was photographed making the “okay” sign. That once-common gesture, according to USA Today, “has become a symbol used by white supremacists.”

Rittenhouse insists that the appearance was arranged by his right-wing attorneys Lin Wood and John Pierce — whom he quickly fired and accused of exploiting him for fund-raising purposes — and that he had no idea that the people with whom he was posing for a photo were Proud Boys members ("I thought they were just a bunch of, like, construction dudes based on how they looked”), nor had he ever heard that the “OK” sign was a symbol of "white power.”

Rittenhouse's denial about this once-benign gesture seems shocking to people who spend all their days drowning in highly politicized Twitter discourse — where such a claim is treated as common knowledge — but is completely believable for the vast majority of Americans who do not. In fact, the whole point of the adolescent 4chan hoax was to convert one of the most common and benign gestures into a symbol of white power so that anyone making it would be suspect. As The New York Times recounted, the gesture has long been “used for several purposes in sign languages, and in yoga as a symbol to demonstrate inner perfection. It figures in an innocuous made-you-look game. Most of all, it has been commonly used for generations to signal 'O.K.,’ or all is well.”

But whatever one chooses to believe about that episode is irrelevant to whether these immediate declarations of Rittenhouse's "white supremacy” were valid. That bar appearance took place in January, 2021 — five months after the Kenosha shootings. Yet Rittenhouse was instantly declared to be a "white supremacist” — and by “instantly,” I mean: within hours of the shooting. “A 17 year old white supremacist domestic terrorist drove across state lines, armed with an AR 15,” was how Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) described Rittenhouse the next day in a mega-viral tweet; her tweet consecrated not only this "white supremacist” accusation which persisted for months, but also affirmed the falsehood that he crossed state lines with an AR-15.

It does not require an advanced degree in physics to understand that his posing for a photo in that bar with Proud Boys members, flashing the OK sign, five months later in January, 2021, could not serve as a rational evidentiary basis for Rep. Pressley's accusation the day after the shootings that he was a "white supremacist,” nor could it serve as the justification for five consecutive months of national media outlets accusing him of the same. Unless his accusers had the power to see into the future, they branded him a white supremacist with no basis whatsoever — or, as The Post put it this week, “despite a lack of evidence.”

Part 1 of 2

 

[marsh]

Part 2 of 2


Ayanna Pressley @AyannaPressley
A 17 year old white supremacist domestic terrorist drove across state lines, armed with an AR 15. He shot and killed 2 people who had assembled to affirm the value, dignity, and worth of Black lives. Fix your damn headlines.
August 27th 2020
99,980 Retweets380,097 Likes

The only other “evidence” ever cited to support the rather grave accusation that this 17-year-old is a "white supremacist” were social media postings of his in which he expressed positive sentiments toward the police and then-President Trump, including with the phrase "Blue Lives Matter." That was all that existed — the entirety of the case — that led the most powerful media outlets and politicians to stamp on this adolescent's forehead the gravest accusation one can face in American culture. This is really the heart of the matter: this episode vividly demonstrates how cheapened and emptied and cynically wielded this "white supremacist" slogan has become. The oft-implicit but sometimes-explicit premise in liberal discourse is that everyone who deviates in any way from liberal dogma is a white supremacist by definition.

Within this rubric, perhaps the most decisive "evidence" that one is a white supremacist is that one supports the Republican Party and former President Trump — i.e., that half of the voting electorate in the U.S. at least are white supremacists. A subsidiary assumption is that anyone who views the police as a necessary, positive force in U.S. society is inherently guilty of racism (it is fine to revere federal policing agencies such as the FBI and other federal security forces such as the CIA, as most Democrats do; the hallmark of a white supremacist is someone who believes that the local police — the ones who show up when citizens call 911 — is a generally positive rather than negative force in society).
An illustration of how casually and recklessly this accusation is tossed around occurred last year, shortly after the George Floyd killing, when my long-time friend and colleague, Intercept journalist Lee Fang, was widely vilified as a racist and white supremacist, first by his own Intercept colleague, journalist Akela Lacy, and then — in one of the most stunningly mindless acts of herd behavior — by literally hundreds if not thousands of members of the national press, including many who barely knew who Lee was but nonetheless were content to echo the accusation (that Lee is himself not white is, of course, not an impediment, not even a speed bump, on the road to castigating him as a modern-day KKK adherent). As Matt Taibbi wrote in disgust about this shameful media episode:

[Lacy's accustory] tweet received tens of thousands of likes and responses along the lines of, “Lee Fang has been like this for years, but the current moment only makes his anti-Blackness more glaring,” and “Lee Fang spouting racist bullshit it must be a day ending in day.” A significant number of Fang’s co-workers, nearly all white, as well as reporters from other major news organizations like the New York Times and MSNBC and political activists (one former Elizabeth Warren staffer tweeted, “Get him!”), issued likes and messages of support for the notion that Fang was a racist.

Writing in New York Magazine, Jonathan Chait documented that “Lacy called him racist in a pair of tweets, the first of which alone received more than 30,000 likes and 5,000 retweets.”

What was the evidence justifying Lee Fang's conviction by mob justice of these charges? He (like Rittenhouse) has expressed the view that police, despite needing reforms, are largely a positive presence in protecting innocent people from violent crime; he suggested that resorting to violence harms rather than helps social justice causes; and he published a video interview he conducted with a young BLM supporter, who complained that many liberals only care when white police officers kill black people but not when black people in his neighborhood are killed by anyone who is not white.



Now-deleted tweets from Intercept reporter Akela Lacy, accusing her Intercept colleague Lee Fang of being a racist, June 3, 2020.

That such banal and commonly held views are woefully insufficient to justify the reputation-destroying accusation that someone is a white supremacist should be too self-evident to require any explanation. But in case such an explanation is required, consider that polls continually and reliably show that the pro-police sentiments of the type that caused Rittenhouse, Fang, and so many others to be vilified by liberal elites as "white supremacists” are held not only by a majority of Americans, but by a majority of black and brown Americans, the very people on whose behalf these elite accusers purport to speak.

For years, polling data has shown that the communities which want at least the same level of policing if not more are communities composed primarily of Black, Brown and poor people. It is not hard to understand why. If the police are defunded or radically reduced, rich people will simply hire private security (even more than they already employ for their homes, neighborhoods and persons), and any resulting crime increases will fall most heavily on poorer communities. Thus, polling data reliably shows that it is these communities that want either the same level of policing or more — the exact view which, if you express, will result in guardians of elite liberal discourse declaring you to be a "white supremacist.” Indeed — according to one Gallup poll taken in the wake of the George Floyd killing, when anti-police sentiment was at its peak — the groups that most want a greater police presence in their communities are Black and Latino citizens:



In the wake of anger over the Floyd and Jacob Blake cases, several large liberal cities succeeded in placing referendums on the ballot for this year that proposed major defunding or restructuring of local police. They failed in almost all cases, including ones with large Black populations such as Minneapolis, where Floyd died, precisely because non-white voters rejected it. In other words, expressing the same views about policing that large numbers of Black residents hold somehow subjects one to accusations of "white supremacy” in the dominant elite liberal discourse.

What all of this demonstrates is that insult terms like "white supremacist” and "racist” and "white nationalist” have lost any fixed meaning. They are instead being trivialized and degraded into little more than discourse toys to be tossed around for fun and reputation-destruction by liberals, who believe they have ascended to a place of such elevated racial enlightenment that they are now the sole and exclusive owners of these terms and thus free to hurl them in whatever manner they please. It is not an overstatement to observe that in elite liberal discourse, there are literally no evidentiary requirements that must be fulfilled before one is free to malign political adversaries with those accusatory terms. That is why editors at The Washington Post published an op-ed proclaiming Rittenhouse was plagued by “deeper white supremacist orientation” just four days after its news division explicitly concluded that such an accusation "lacks evidence” — because it it permissible to accuse people of racism and white supremacy without any evidence needed.

It is inherently disturbing and destructive any time a person is publicly branded as something for which there is no evidence. That is intrinsically something we should collectively abhor. But this growing trend in liberal discourse is not just ethically repellent but dangerous. By so flagrantly cheapening and exploiting the "white supremacist” accusation from what it should be (a potent weapon deployed to stigmatize and ostracize actual racists) into something far more tawdry (a plaything used by Democrats to demean and destroy their enemies whenever the mood strikes), its cynical abusers are draining the term of all of its vibrancy, potency and force, so that when it is needed, for actual racists, people will have tuned it out, knowing that is used deceitfully, recklessly and for cheap entertainment.

A similar dynamic emerged with accusations of anti-semitism and the weaponization of it to demonize criticisms of Israel. It is, of course, true that some criticisms of the Israeli government are partially grounded or even largely motivated by anti-semitism — just as it is true that some championing of the local police or support for Trump grows out of racist sentiments. But the converse is just as true: one can vehemently criticize the actions of the Israeli government the same as any other government without being driven by an iota of anti-semitism (indeed, many of the most vocal critics of Israel are proudly Jewish), in exactly the same way as one can be highly supportive of the local police or Donald Trump without an iota of racism (a proposition that should need no proof, but is nonetheless highlighted by the uncomfortable fact that growing numbers of non-whites support both Trump and the police). But the cynical, manipulative weaponization of anti-semitism accusations to smear all critics of Israel has rendered the accusation far weaker and more easily dismissible than it once was — exactly as is now happening to the accusatory terms "white supremacist” and “white nationalist” and "racist,” which are being increasingly understood, validly so, not as a grave and sincere condemnation but a cheap tactic to be applied recklessly, for the tawdry entertainment one derives from public rituals of reputation-destruction.

 

[marsh]

Brilliant: The Difference Between God-Given Human Rights and Democrat Socialism (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

In his 1944 State of the Union address, President Franklin ano Roosevelt outlined his “Second Bill of Rights,” a vision to make the lives of all Americans more secure.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Brilliant: The Difference Between God-Given Human Rights and Democrat Socialism (VIDEO)

By Jim Hoft
Published November 27, 2021 at 9:36am

In his 1944 State of the Union address, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt outlined his “Second Bill of Rights,” a vision to make the lives of all Americans more secure.

Roosevelt, a committed leftist, listed out his socialist bill of rights in the speech.

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
• The right of every family to a decent home;
• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health
• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
• The right to a good education.

Of course, Roosevelt’s list describes a socialist wish list, something you would expect to see from a Marxist politician and not an American president. No wonder the Great Depression lasted for an entire decade under his regime.

This weekend a young, intelligent patriot– Zerah Stelzer — on Tik-Tok explains the difference between positive human rights and negative human rights.

Zerah’s TikTok and Instagram handle is: @impact_politics

video on website 53 sec

 

[marsh]

Key Republican says party must assure voters it will impeach Garland, force overhaul at DOJ

Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) set to become the new House Freedom Caucus chairman, warns voters don't see enough difference between Republicans and Democrats.

justthenews.com

Key Republican says party must assure voters it will impeach Garland, force overhaul at DOJ

Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) set to become the new House Freedom Caucus chairman, warns voters don't see enough difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Updated: November 27, 2021 - 10:31pm

The incoming chairman of the House Freedom Caucus says congressional Republicans must create a clear agenda and messaging in the 2022 election to overcome voter perceptions that there's little difference between the establishment parties in an era of freewheeling spending and large government.

"We need to be in contact with more individual citizens and every single district in every state bringing the message to them so that they understand what the difference is and that there is a true difference," Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) told Just the News.

"A lot of people say, 'Well, look, there's not a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats.' And you know this, John, when it comes to the establishment cartel in Washington that can't stop spending taxpayer money, there is some truth to that," he acknowledged, adding that "we should be here to say, 'Just do what you said you were going to do.'"

One way House Republicans can distinguish themselves in next year's races is to pledge to impeach Attorney General Merrick Garland if they take control of Congress, showing voters there will be an overhaul of the Justice Department after years of politicization and prosecutorial overreach ranging from the Russia collusion probe to the targeting of parents protesting school board policies.

America "needs a new chief executive, or somebody completely different at the top of the Justice Department, which is why I've called for and introduced articles of impeachment for Merrick Garland," Perry said during an interview this month on the John Solomon Reports podcast.

"Whether it's overly politicized use of the Justice Department on political adversaries, to going after parents, he's got to go, but we can't just have another replacement for him, we need a wholesale review and cleaning of half in the Justice Department," he said.

Perry was elected earlier this month as chairman of the Freedom Caucus, which started a decade ago as a home to the party's most conservative lawmakers and has grown to be a significant voice in the House GOP with nearly 30 members.

Perry said Republicans need to make clear next year's election is a choice between big government socialism and free market capitalism and limited government.

"I know it's hard to accept, but [the Democrats] want to tear down the system that you love, that works great,” he said. "That's the free market, competitive market system. And they want to replace it with a socialist, top-down government system that decides what you'll get, and how much you'll like it, including the car you drive."

To draw the distinction, Republicans need a clear agenda that stands for energy independence, law and order, funding the police, securing the border, reducing spending and opposing encroaching government regulation that drives up inflation and harms workers.

For candidates who espouse that agenda, "the Freedom Caucus is going to articulate those messages right alongside you, but then also encourage you to stand by those promises by voting for them," he said.

He said his goal is to be "showing everybody that even in marginal districts, people support candidates and representatives that do what they said they were going to do."

The Pennsylvania Republican said his party must do more to seize the narrative, like explaining to voters how the current supply chain crisis can be traced in part to progressive policies like Assembly Bill 5, which essentially outlawed independent, non-union truck drivers at the California ports.

"They have created the supply chain shortages, by policies like AB 5 in California, which outlaws independent truckers," he said. "And we wonder why we can't get our goods to market, it's because they fired everybody."

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Bovard Blasts The Biden Crackdown On Thought Crimes

SATURDAY, NOV 27, 2021 - 10:45 PM
Authored by Jim Bovard,

The Biden administration is seeking to radically narrow the boundaries of respectable American political thought. The administration has repeatedly issued statements and reports that could automatically castigate citizens who distrust the federal government. We may eventually learn that the new Biden guidelines spurred a vast increase in federal surveillance and other abuses against Americans who were guilty of nothing more than vigorous skepticism.



Biden is Nixon on steroids

The Biden team is expanding the federal Enemies List perhaps faster than any time since the Nixon administration. In June, the Biden administration asserted that guys who are unable to score with women may be terrorist threats due to “involuntary celibate–violent extremism.”

That revelation was included in the administration’s National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, which identified legions of new potential “domestic terrorists” that the feds can castigate and investigate.

The White House claims its new war on terrorism and extremism is “carefully tailored to address violence and reduce the factors that …infringe on the free expression of ideas.” But the prerogative to define extremism includes the power to revile disapproved beliefs. The report warns that “narratives of fraud in the recent general election … will almost certainly spur some [domestic violent extremists] to try to engage in violence this year.” If accusations of 2020 electoral shenanigans are formally labeled as extremist threats, that could result in far more repression (aided by Facebook and Twitter) of dissenting voices. How will this work out any better than the concerted campaign by the media and Big Tech last fall to suppress all information about Hunter Biden’s laptop before the election? And how can Biden be trusted to be the judge after he effectively accused Facebook of mass murder for refusing to totally censor anyone who raised doubts about the COVID-19 vaccine?

The Biden administration is revving up for a war against an enemy which the feds have chosen to never explicitly define. According to a March report by Biden’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence, “domestic violent extremists” include individuals who “take overt steps to violently resist or facilitate the overthrow of the U.S. government in support of their belief that the U.S. government is purposely exceeding its Constitutional authority.” But that was the same belief that many Biden voters had regarding the Trump administration. Does the definition of extremism depend solely on which party captured the White House?

The Biden report writers were spooked by the existence of militia groups and flirt with the fantasy of outlawing them across the land. The report promises to explore “how to make better use of laws that already exist in all fifty states prohibiting certain private ‘militia’ activity, including … state statutes prohibiting groups of people from organizing as private military units without the authorization of the state government, and state statutes that criminalize certain paramilitary activity.” Most of the private militia groups are guilty of nothing more than bluster and braggadocio. Besides, many of them are already overstocked with government informants who are counting on Uncle Sam for regular paychecks. Some politicians and pundits might like to see a new federal crime that labels any meeting of more than two gun owners as an illegal conspiracy.

The Biden report promises that the FBI and DHS will soon be releasing “a new edition of the Federal Government’s Mobilization Indicators booklet that will include for the first time potential indicators of domestic terrorism–related mobilization.” Will this latest publication be as boneheaded as the similar 2014 report by the National Counterterrorism Center entitled “Countering Violent Extremism: A Guide for Practitioners and Analysts”?

The new Red Guard
As the Intercept summarized, that report “suggests that police, social workers and educators rate individuals on a scale of one to five in categories such as ‘Expressions of Hopelessness, Futility,’ … and ‘Connection to Group Identity (Race, Nationality, Religion, Ethnicity)’ … to alert government officials to individuals at risk of turning to radical violence, and to families or communities at risk of incubating extremist ideologies.” The report recommended judging families by their level of “Parent-Child Bonding” and rating localities on the basis in part of the “presence of ideologues or recruiters.” Former FBI agent Mike German commented, “The idea that the federal government would encourage local police, teachers, medical, and social-service employees to rate the communities, individuals, and families they serve for their potential to become terrorists is abhorrent on its face.”

Biden’s “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism” report also declared that “enhancing faith in American democracy” requires “finding ways to counter the influence and impact of dangerous conspiracy theories.” In recent decades, conspiracy theories have multiplied almost as fast as government lies and cover-ups. While many allegations have been ludicrously far-fetched, the political establishment and media routinely attach the “conspiracy theory” label to any challenge to their dominance.

According to Cass Sunstein, Harvard Law professor and Oba- ma’s regulatory czar, a conspiracy theory is “an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.” Reasonable citizens are supposed to presume that government creates trillions of pages of new secrets each year for their own good, not to hide anything from the public.

“Conspiracy theory” is a magic phrase that expunges all previous federal abuses. Many liberals who invoke the phrase also ritually quote a 1965 book by former communist Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics. Hofstadter portrayed distrust of government as a proxy for mental illness, a paradigm that makes the character of critics more important than the conduct of government agencies. For Hofstadter, it was a self-evident truth that government was trustworthy because American politics had “a kind of professional code … embodying the practical wisdom of generations of politicians.”

The rise of conspiracy theories
In the early 1960s, conspiracy theories were practically a non-issue because 75 percent of Americans trusted the federal government. Such credulity did not survive the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Seven days after Kennedy was shot on November 22, 1963, President Lyndon Johnson created a commission (later known as the Warren Commission) to suppress controversy about the killing.

Johnson browbeat the commission members into speedily issuing a report rubber-stamping the “crazed lone gunman” version of the assassination. House Minority Leader Gerald Ford, a member of the commission, revised the final staff report to change the location of where the bullet entered Kennedy’s body, thereby salvaging the so-called “magic bullet” theory.

After the Warren Commission findings were ridiculed as a whitewash, Johnson ordered the FBI to conduct wiretaps on the report’s critics. To protect the official story, the commission sealed key records for 75 years. Truth would out only after all the people involved in any coverup had gotten their pensions and died.

The controversy surrounding the Warren Commission spurred the CIA to formally attack the notion of conspiracy theories. In a 1967 alert to its overseas stations and bases, the CIA declared that the fact that almost half of Americans did not believe Oswald acted alone “is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization” and endangers “the whole reputation of the American government.”

The memo instructed recipients to “employ propaganda assets” and exploit “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out … parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists.” The ultimate proof of the government’s innocence: “Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States.”

The New York Times, which exposed the CIA memo in 1977, noted that the CIA “mustered its propaganda machinery to support an issue of far more concern to Americans, and to the C.I.A. itself, than to citizens of other countries.” According to historian Lance deHaven-Smith, author of Conspiracy Theory in America, “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited … with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.” In 2014, the CIA released a heavily-redacted report admitting that it had been “complicit” in a JFK “cover-up” by withholding “incendiary” information from the Warren Commission. The CIA successfully concealed a wide range of assassinations and foreign coups it conducted until congressional investigations in the mid-1970s blew the whistle.

“Conspiracy theory” allegations sometimes merely expose the naivete of official scorekeepers. In April 2016, Chapman University surveyed Americans and announced that “the most prevalent conspiracy theory in the United States is that the government is concealing information about the 9/11 attacks with slightly over half of Americans holding that belief.”

That survey did not ask whether people believed the World Trade Centers were blown up by an inside job or whether President George W. Bush secretly masterminded the attacks. Instead, folks were simply asked whether “government is concealing information” about the attacks.

Only a village idiot, college professor, or editorial writer would presume the government had come clean.

Three months after the Chapman University survey was conducted, the Obama administration finally released 28 pages of a 2003 congressional report that revealed that Saudi government officials had directly financed some of the 9/11 hijackers in America. That disclosure shattered the storyline carefully constructed by the Bush administration, the 9/11 Commission, and legions of media accomplices. (Lawsuits continue in federal court seeking to force the U.S. government to disclose more information regarding the Saudi government role in the attacks.)

Conspiracy theories a tool for control
“Conspiracy theory” is often a flag of convenience for the political-media elite. In 2018, the New York Times asserted that Trump’s use of the term “Deep State” and similar rhetoric “fanned fears that he is eroding public trust in institutions, undermining the idea of objective truth and sowing widespread suspicions about the government and news media.” However, after allegations by anonymous government officials spurred Trump’s first impeachment in 2019, New York Times columnist James Stewart cheered, “There is a Deep State, there is a bureaucracy in our country who has pledged to respect the Constitution, respect the rule of law…. They work for the American people.” New York Times editorial writer Michelle Cottle proclaimed, “The deep state is alive and well” and hailed it as “a collection of patriotic public servants.” Almost immediately after its existence was no longer denied, the Deep State became the incarnation of virtue in Washington. After Biden was elected, references to the “Deep State” were once again labeled paranoid ravings.

Much of the establishment rage at “conspiracy theories” has been driven by the notion that rulers are entitled to intellectual passive obedience. The same lèse-majesté mindset has been widely adopted to make a muddle of American history. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the court historian for President John F. Kennedy and a revered liberal intellectual, declared in 2004, “Historians today conclude that the colonists were driven to revolt in 1776 because of a false conviction that they faced a British conspiracy to destroy their freedom.” What the hell is wrong with “historians today”?! Was the British imposition of martial law, confiscation of firearms, military blockades, suspension of habeas corpus, and censorship simply a deranged fantasy of Thomas Jefferson? The notion that the British would never conspire to destroy freedom would play poorly in Dublin, where the Irish suffered centuries of brutal British oppression. Why should anyone trust academics who were blind to British threats in the 1770s to accurately judge the danger that today’s politicians pose to Americans’ liberty?

How does the Biden administration intend to fight “conspiracy theories?” The Biden terrorism report called for “enhancing faith in government” by “accelerating work to contend with an information environment that challenges healthy democratic discourse.” Will Biden’s team rely on the “solution” suggested by Cass Sunstein: “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups” by government agents and informants to “undermine” them from within?

Does the Biden administration also propose banning Americans from learning anything from the history of prior federal debacles? Nixon White House aide Tom Charles Huston explained that the FBI’s COINTELPRO program continually stretched its target list “from the kid with a bomb to the kid with a picket sign, and from the kid with the picket sign to the kid with the bumper sticker of the opposing candidate. And you just keep going down the line.” A 1976 Senate report on COINTELPRO demanded assurances that a federal agency would never again “be permitted to conduct a secret war against those citizens it considers threats, to the established order.” Actually, the FBI and other agencies have continued secretly warring against “threats,” and legions of informants are likely busy “cognitively infiltrating” at this moment.

Permitting politicians to blacklist any ideas they disapprove won’t “restore faith in democracy.” Extremism has always been a flag of political convenience, and the Biden team, the FBI, and their media allies will fan fears to sanctify new government crackdowns. But what if government is the most dangerous extremist of them all?

 

[marsh]

Twitter's New CEO Does Not Care About or Honor American Rights and Freedoms - Says "Our Role Is Not to Be Bound by First Amendment" ...Update: Posted Racist Anti-White Tweet | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Any conservative American who travels internationally knows it is next to impossible to find fair and balanced media coverage of anything or anyone conservative in America today.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Twitter’s New CEO Does Not Care About or Honor American Rights and Freedoms – Says “Our Role Is Not to Be Bound by First Amendment” …Update: Posted Racist Anti-White Tweet

By Jim Hoft
Published November 29, 2021 at 1:30pm

Any conservative American who travels internationally knows it is next to impossible to find fair and balanced media coverage of anything or anyone conservative in America today.

CNN’s foreign coverage is focused on smears and lies about conservative Americans. And fake news CNN in several countries is the only source of American news the people have.

It is no wonder then that foreigners who come to America hate conservatives, Christians and hold racist views of white people. Many of these immigrants are then employed in great numbers by the anti-American tech giants in Silicon Valley.

Are these new foreign employees taught about American laws, tradition and culture? Are they taught about free speech and free assembly?

We all know the answer to these questions.

On Monday morning CEO Jack Dorsey stepped down at Twitter. Parag Agrawal will take over the company.

Parag Agrawal was raised in India. He graduated from the Indian Institute of Technology in Bombay before coming to the US.

In a 2020 interview Parag Agrawal said, “Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment.“



So what is your role then?

If Twitter does not honor the laws of this country then what does it honor? And who the hell is this guy?

These tech gods are killing America. Will GOP leadership ever act?

Maybe it’s time to clean out the GOP from top to bottom? These people will not fight for our God-given rights. They are missing in action. We barely have any rights left thanks to the Marxists in charge and the weaklings on the wing.

And the new Twitter CEO knows there will be no repercussions for the company’s lawlessness.

Enough.

For the record, The Gateway Pundit was banned for posting video of election fraud a month after President Trump’s account was deleted.

UPDATE: Parag put up a, anti-white, racist tweet in 2010 that came to light today.

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Teacher Unions, Parents Gird For 2022 Battles

MONDAY, NOV 29, 2021 - 09:00 PM
Authored by Susan Crabtree via RealClearPolitics.com,

Over the last year, school board meetings have become ground zero for the country’s culture wars as irate parents have showed up in droves to decry school COVID closures, mask mandates, and critical race theory, as well as transgender policies.



After political analysts credited a parental uprising with helping Republican political newcomer Glenn Youngkin capture the Virginia governorship this month, these fights show no sign of easing. Both major political parties are already gearing up for next year’s midterm elections with Republicans sensing an advantage and Democrats digging in to defend beleaguered school boards, teacher unions, and the progressive policies they hold dear.

This week, conservative parents and their supporters are expressing new outrage over news that the FBI is placing “threat tags” on individuals accused of harassing or trying to intimidate school board members and teachers. For months, disgruntled parents have angrily targeted school board trustees for recalls across the nation, regularly denouncing union control of the schools as the crux of the problem. Recall attempts against school board trustees have tripled in 2021, targeting at least 216 officials, according to Ballotpedia.

But in at least one school district in Southern California, parents are warning their like-minded revolutionaries across the nation to be careful what they wish for and to get ready for a tough fight ahead. After gaining majority control of the local school board, they found themselves on the other side of the firing line with teacher unions vigorously targeting their trustee allies.

A local affiliate of the California Teachers Association has spent months this year trying to wrest back control of the school board after some of its trustees successfully fought alongside parents to reopen schools earlier this year. The union’s actions, while flying below the national radar, were unusually aggressive.

They included spending up to $60,000 in union funds on a private firm to collect recall signatures against one trustee; successfully recalling the only African American on the board; and hiring a private investigator to follow the school board president home from meetings in an effort to challenge her residency within the district.

Why is the union so focused on regaining control of this particular school board? For local parents, it’s no mystery. The answer is the ripple effect of pandemic politics.

Frustrated by coronavirus lockdowns, a group of parents in North County San Diego founded an association and sued the state to overturn pandemic rules limiting the number of days of in-person learning or completely blocking some schools from reopening at all. In mid-March, San Diego Superior Court Judge Cynthia Freeland ruled in the association’s favor, prohibiting the state from enforcing its restrictions, which she agreed were “arbitrary,” interfered with school districts’ reopening plans for in-person instruction and denied children’s “fundamental right to basic education equality.”

Moreover, in the absence of a contrary ruling by a higher court, the judge’s decision applied to the entire state, sending a clear message to the CTA (the biggest statewide union) and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration that their guidelines weren’t mandates and they must allow school districts to reopen more rapidly.

The San Dieguito Union High School District, a high-performing area with 13,000 students and 600 teachers, had scheduled school re-openings for January 2021 but reversed course when the union sued in December to block that action.

School board Trustee Michael Allman, who was elected to the board last fall, was the lone dissenting vote. Allman’s outspoken opposition won strong support from local parents organizing on a Facebook forum, a group that quickly grew to more than 2,000 supporters.

Other board members, including President Maureen “Mo” Muir, had also started pushing back against COVID school closures.

The San Dieguito Faculty Association, the local CTA affiliate, launched a recall campaign against Allman just five months into his four-year term. The union accused Allman, a former energy company executive, of violating the district’s code of conduct, charges he denies and that he believes arose from a public war of words over schools’ pandemic policies taking place on social media sites.

The SDFA a few months ago gave itself permission to spend up to $60,000 hiring a private firm to gather 5,000 signatures needed to recall Allman. At least $14,500 of that came directly from the CTA. Yet, even with the private help, the union recently gave up and the recall failed to qualify.

Allman had fought back, spending nearly all of his free time going door to door defending himself. He said he heard from supporters that recall signature gatherers were falsely accusing him of being under criminal investigation, among other “outlandish lies,” so he sent a cease-and-desist letter to SDFA President Duncan Brown. He says he’s still considering filing a defamation suit.

“It’s hard to beat the unions. I prevailed because I have the support of parents who are speaking up like never before,” Allman said in an interview.

“Put yourself in my shoes. Teachers are spreading lies about me in the community, so I went door-to-door with parents to say, ‘Hey, I’m a good guy, and I support parents.’”

He says he had a roughly 50% conversion rate of area residents who said they had already signed the recall petition. (State rules allow for the rescinding of signatures.)

But the SDFA, again with significant CTA help, successfully forced a special election for another seat on the school board, which was held by Ty Hume, the only African American member of the all-white panel. Hume, a businessman and openly declared independent, had been appointed after a union-backed trustee resigned earlier this year. Hume’s appointment gave non-union-aligned members a three-to-two majority on the board.

The SDFA took issue with Hume’s appointment, arguing that voters should have had a say in his election. His opponents produced the necessary signatures to rescind the appointment and call a special election, costing the district up to $500,000 to hold. But the gambit worked: Hume was defeated by union-backed candidate Julie Bronstein, who out-fundraised him with donations from the SDFA, another public employee union, as well as the local congressman, Rep. Scott Peters.

In a more bizarre twist, the same union hired a private investigator to follow Mo Muir home to see whether she was in fact living in the district she represented, as required by law. The private eye determined that the board president was renting out her home, which was up for sale, leading the local teacher union president to file a complaint with the district attorney. But Muir explained that she was spending time at the home of her elderly mother-in-law in Lake Tahoe during the height of the pandemic lockdowns. She sold her home but rented another within the district boundaries. The district attorney has yet to take any action; a spokeswoman said the office has a policy of declining to say whether it’s involved in an investigation.

Brown declined an RCP interview request but provided a lengthy written statement, arguing that “democracy prevailed” because the union successfully ousted Hume, whom the board had appointed, and allowed residents to elect Bronstein, who won with nearly 60% of the vote.

“While our efforts to recall Michael Allman did not result in activating a special election … we have been successful in highlighting Allman’s abuses of office to the broader community,” Brown said. He noted that the effort collected more than 4,000 signatures while thousands of other district residents “have been made aware of the dysfunction of our school board majority.”

Brown didn’t respond to an RCP request to outline Allman’s “abuses of office” and whether he or anyone else in the union is responsible for the false information Allman says was circulating about him. “SDFA will continue to stand for our students, our educators and our community,” he said.

Area parents’ groups privately warn of a greater union backlash to come if reform groups successfully recall and replace school board trustees in large numbers across the country.

Yet this is precisely what conservative groups are pledging to do nationally, although competing with the unions’ massive organization and deep pockets is a tall order for the newly energized patchwork of parents’ groups.

A national group called 1776 Action, which promotes teaching children a traditional appreciation of America’s founding, is asking candidates and elected officials to sign a pledge calling for the restoration of an “honest, patriotic education.” The group is a conservative response to the New York Times’ 1619 project, which frames all of U.S. history through the prism of slavery.

“2021 is really going to sort of be seen as kind of a canary in the coal mine of what’s coming down the pike next year and into the future,” Adam Waldeck, the group’s president, recently told the Associated Press.

“This will be the year that I think primarily parents stand up and say, ‘You know, we have a voice, too.’ And I think it’s going to be overwhelming.”

Kimberly Fletcher, the president and founder of Moms for America, another group organized to fight for school reopenings and against CRT and other liberal education policies, recently protested at the headquarters of the National School Boards Association in Alexandria, Va. Her organization, along with numerous other voices on the right, denounced a letter the NSBA sent to the Biden administration urging it to treat complaints aimed at school boards and teachers as possible acts of “domestic terrorism.” After a nationwide uproar, the group rescinded the letter and apologized to its members.

Fletcher says she views the outsized role fed up parents played in the Virginia governor’s race as a “precursor of what’s to come” in the 2022 midterms.

“I have been saying for years that the moment that moms find out what’s going on behind closed doors in our schools, there’s going to be a national revolt, and that’s exactly what’s going on,” she said. “We’re just getting started.”

In recent months, she said several members of her group have been running for spots on school boards and winning in places such as Texas and Idaho, as well as the swing states of Pennsylvania and Colorado.

The moms group is providing training sessions for prospective board candidates and for newly elected trustees, which, Fletcher argued, is far more powerful than trying to compete dollar-to-dollar with unions.

“Here’s the beauty of it — when you’re fighting for parents’ rights, you don’t need a lot of money to win,” she argued. “It’s a matter of principle.”

Still, the well-oiled teacher union machine can be formidable, especially in more liberal areas of the country. While angry parents helped fuel Youngkin’s win in purple Virginia on Nov. 2, the same day the entire Denver school board flipped from trustees supported by education reform organizations to union-backed candidates.

 

[marsh]

Salvation Army withdraws guide that asks white supporters to apologize for their race

The group has withdrawn the controversial guide amid backlash from donors.

justthenews.com

Salvation Army withdraws guide that asks white supporters to apologize for their race
The group has withdrawn the controversial guide amid backlash from donors.

Updated: November 29, 2021 - 2:40pm

The Salvation Army has withdrawn its controversial "Let's Talk About ... Racism" guide following criticism and donor backlash over the text that asked white supporters of the charity group to deliver "sincere" apologies for their race and the past sins of the Church.

As a result of some of the guide's more extreme positions becoming public, donors and supporters across the country have been rescinding their support of the organization.

In a statement titled "The Salvation Army's Response to False Claims on the Topic of Racism," the 156-year-old organization denies that the purpose of the guide or subsequent discussions revolving around the guide were meant to tell anyone "how to think." However, the group has also opted to withdraw the guide for "appropriate review."

The group is perhaps best known for collecting coins and paper money in red kettles outside of stores during the Christmas holiday season with a member ringing a bell.

The statement, in part, also reads: "The Salvation Army occasionally publishes internal study guides on various complex topics to help foster positive conversations and grace-filled reflection among Salvationists. By openly discussing these issues, we always hope to encourage the development of a more thoughtful organization that is better positioned to support those in need. But no one is being told how to think. Period."

A few paragraphs later, it continues: "We have done our best to provide accurate information, but unfortunately, some have chosen to ignore those efforts. At the same time, International Headquarters realized that certain aspects of the guide may need to be clarified.

"Consequently, for both reasons, the International Social Justice Commission has now withdrawn the guide for appropriate review."